
    Max Gross, Respondent, v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurance Company, Appellant.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    March 3, 1932.
    
      Davis, Auerbach & Cornell [William J. Carr and Martin A. Schenck of counsel], for the appellant.
    
      Nathan Gross, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The ring involved herein was a ladies’ ring which the assured, a male person, had bought some time previously for presentation as an engagement ring. It was being carried at the time of its loss because the assured intended to sell it — the engagement having been broken. Under such circumstances it was not a personal effect usually carried by a tourist or a traveller,” nor was it “ personal jewelry belonging to and used or worn by the assured or a member of his family.” In any event it comes within the exception in the policy excluding merchandise for sale.”

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and complaint dismissed.

Callahan and Untermyer, JJ., concur on the merits, with costs; Levy, J., dissents.  