& T. R. Co. v. Cook, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 381, 27 S. W. 769. 120. A contract varying a policy is as much an instrument as the policy itself, and therefore can be executed only in the manner prescribed by law. Head v. Providence Ins. Co. 2 Cranch, 127, 2:229 Cited in Laclede Fire-Brick Mfg. Co. v. Hartford Steam-Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co. 9 C. C. A. 7, 19 U. S. App. 510, 60 Fed. 358Leonard v. American Ins. Co. 97 Ind. 304— Presbyterian Mut. Assur. Fund v. Allen, 106 Merchants Ind. 596, 7 N. E. 317-Platho v & Mfrs.' Ins. Co. 38 Mo. 255-Hathron v. Germania Ins. Co. 55 Barb. 34. - Editorial notes. 24: 291 Parol insurance, when valid. Assent of parties. 121. When an insurance company has made known the terms upon which it will insure certain property, the mailing of acceptance of those terms, by the party to be insured, completes the contract; and the responsibility of the insurer dates from such mailing. Tayloe v. Merchants' F. Ins. Co. 9 How. 390, 13: 187 Cited in Garfielde v. United States, 11 Ct. Cl 601-Utley v. Donaldson, 94 U. S. 45, 24 L. ed. 55-Patrick v. Bowman, 149 U. S. 424, 37 L. ed. 795, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 811-McDonald v. Chemical Nat. Bank, 174 U. S. 620, 43 L. ed. 1110, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 787Re Dodge, 9 Ben. 482, 17 Nat. Bankr. Reg 506, Fed. Cas. No. 3,948-Humphry v. Hartford F. Ins. Co. 15 Blatchf. 511, Fed. Cas No. 6,875-Winterport Granite & Brick Co. v. The Jasper, Holmes, 102, Fed. Cas. No 17,898-Northwestern Mut. L. Ins. Co. V. Elliott, 7 Sawy. 21, 5 Fed. 229-Garrettson V. North Atchison Bank, 47 Fed. 869Schultz v. Phenix Ins. Co. 77 Fed. 394 Phenix Ins. Co. v. Schultz, 25 C. C. A. 459. Johnston, 44 C. C. A. 482, 105 Fed. 291— son V 454- Brauer v. Shaw, 168 Mass. 201, 60 Am. St. Rep. 387, 46 N. E. 617-Michigan Pipe Co. v. Michigan F. & M. Ins. Co. 92 Mich. 491, 20 L.R.A. 289, 52 N. W. 1070Lanz v. McLaughlin, 14 Minn. 75, Gil. 55Heiman v. Phoenix Mut. L. Ins. Co. 17 Mina. 157, 10 Am. Rep. 154, Gil. 127-Horn v. Western Land Asso. 22 Minn. 236-Robertv. Cloud, 47 Miss. 210-Alabama Gold L. Ins. Co. v. Herron, 56 Miss. 646—Wallingford v. Home Mut. F. & M. Ins. Co. 30 Mo 55-Keim v. Home Mut. F. & M. Ins. Co, 42 Mo. 41, 97 Am. Dec 291-Lungstrass German Ins. Co. 48 Mo 204, 8 Am. Rep. 100-Day v. Mechanics' & T. Ins. Co. 85 Mo 337, 57 Am. Rep. 416-Estey v. Truxel, 25 Mo. App. 245-Misselhorn v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Asso. 30 Mo. App. 600— Abbott v. Shepard, 48 N. H. 17-Davis v. Home Mfrs. Ins. Co. 67 N. H. 219-Hallock v. Commercial Ins. Co 26 N. J. L. 283Northampton Mut. Live Stock Ins. Co. v. Tuttle, 40 N. J. L 479-McClave v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Asso 55 N. J. L. 191, 26 Atl 78-Post v. Etna Ins. Co. 43 Barb. 363-McCluskey v. National Life Asso. 77 Hun, 558, 28 N. Y. Supp. 931-Bentley V. Columbia Ins. Co. 17 N. Y. 423--Wylie v. Brice, 70 N. C. 425-Palm v. Medina County Mut. F. Ins. Co. 20 Ohio, 539-Hacheny v. Leary, 12 Or. 43, 7 Pac. 329-Mckee v. Harris, 16 Phila. 150---Otis V. Payne, 86 Tenn. 666, 8 S. W. 848-Blake v. Hamburg Bremen F. Ins. Co. 67 Tex. 163, 60 Am. Rep. 15, 2 S. W. 368--Matkin v. Supreme Lodge K. of H. 82 Tex. 303, 27 Am. St Rep. 886, 18 S. W. 306-Wooddy V. Old Dominion Ins. Co. 31 Gratt. 364, 31 Am. Rep. 732-McCully v. Phoenix Mut. L. Ins. Co. 18 W. Va. 785-Fuller v. Madison Mut. Ins. Co. 36 Wis. 603. 122. Where an application for insurance was made in the regular form, and everything was satisfactory except the rate of premium, and correspondence was had on this subject, whereby the owner of the property, being unable to make better terms else where, finally notified the company that he agreed to the rate required, it was held that a valid contract of insurance had been made, upon which the company was liable, where the property was burned before the premium was paid or the policy written. Eames v. Home Ins. Co. 94 U. S. 621. 24: 298 v. Meyer, 61 C. C. A. 256, 126 Fed. 354Mobile Marine Dock & Mut. Ins. Co. v. McMillan, 31 Ala. 20-Kempner v. Cohn, 47 Ark. 527, 58 Am. Rep. 775, 1 S. W. 869— State Mut. F. Ins. Asso. v. Brinkley Stave & Heading Co. 61 Ark. 5, 29 L.R.A. 713, 54 Am. St. Rep. 191, 31 S. W. 157-Hollingsworth v. Germania, N. H. & R. F. Ins. Cos. 45 Ga. 297, 12 Am. Rep. 579-Hartford F. Ins. Co. v. Farrish, 73 II. 168-Haas V. Myers, 111 Ill. 426, 53 Am. Rep. 634—Firemen's Ins. Co. v. Kuessner, 164 III. 280, 45 N. E. 540-Continental Ins. Co. v. Roller, 101 Ill. App. 80-Kentucky Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jenks, 5 Ind. 100-New England F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Robinson, 25 Ind 539-Barr v. Insurance Co. of N. A. 61 Ind 495-Union Cent. L. Ins. Co. v. Pauly, 8 Ind. App 94, 35 N. E. 190-Western Assur. Co. v. McAlpin, 23 Ind. App. 223, 77 Am. St. Rep 423, 55 N. E. 119-Ferrier V. Storer, 63 Iowa, 487, 50 Am. Rep. 752, 19 N. W. 288 -Preferred Acci. Ins. Co. v. Stone, 61 Kan. 53, 58 Pac. 986-Security F Ins. Co. v. Kentucky M. & F. Ins. Co. 7 Bush, 86, 3 Am. Rep. 301-Wheat v. Cross, 31 Md. 103, 1 Am. Rep. 28-Phoenix Ins. Co. v Ryland, 69 Md. 447, 1 L.R.A. 550, 16 Atl. 109Handgreement to insure, the words in the letter v. Evans Marble Co. 88 Md. 231, 40 Atl. 899--Latrobe v. Winans, 89 Md. 647, 43 Atl. Cited in Laclede Fire-Brick Mfg. Co. v. Hartford Steam-Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co. 9 C. C. A. 8, 19 U. S. App. 510, 60 Fed. 359 -Schultz v. Phenix Ins. Co. 77 Fed. 389Hartford F. Ins. Co. v. King, 106 Ala. 522. 17 So. 707-Continental Ins. Co. v. Roller, 101 Ill. App. 79-Western Assur. Co. v. MeAlpin. 23 Ind. App. 225, 77 Am. St. Rep. 423, 55 N. E 119-Emery v. Boston M. Ins. Co. 138 Mass. 412-Davis v. Etna Mut. F. Ins. Co. 67 N. H. 219, 34 Atl. 464Newark Mach Co. v. Kenton Ins. Co. 50 Ohio St. 556, 22 LR A. 773, 35 N. E. 1060 -Sproul v. Western Assur. Co. 33 Or. 105, 54 Pac 180-Smith v. Sugar Valley Mut. F. Ins. Co. 5 Pa. Dist. R. 339-Van Slyke v. Trempealeau County F. Mut. Ins. Co. 48 Wis. 687, 5 N. W. 236. 123. In a correspondence respecting an of the applicant, "6 per cent is pretty heavy, but I guess we will have to stand it," 829-Sanborn v. Fireman's Ins. Co. 16 Gray, held, an acceptance of the proposal to in 127. It is not necessary that a premium note should have been signed and delivered, to render binding a contract to make a polCo. v. Union Mut. Ins. Co. 19 How. 318, icy of insurance. Commercial Mut. M. Îns. 15:636 Cited in Miller v. Brooklyn L. Ins. Co. 12 Wall. .304, 20 L. ed. 402-Belleville Mut. Ins. Co. v. Van Winkle, 12 N. J. Eq. 340. Signature. 128. The statute of Massachusetts which provides that insurance corporations can make valid policies only by having them signed by their president and secretary only directs the formal mode of signing policies, and has no application to agreements for inCommercial Mut. M. Ins. Co. v. Union Mut. Ins. Co. 19 How. 318, 15: 636 Delivery and acceptance of policy. Acceptance of Offer to Insurer, see sure.-Eames v. Home Ins. Co. 94 U. S. 75 Pac. 937. 125. A friend of the applicant could not pay the premium, about the payment of which there was an unsettled dispute, an hour or two before the death of the applicant, to an agent ignorant of his hopeless illness, and thus secure a valid policy, not delivered until after his death. Piedmont & A. L. Ins. Co. v. Ewing, 92 U. S. 377, 23: 60 Distinguished in Dove v. Royal Ins. Co. 98 Mich. 125, 57 N. W. 30. Cited in Giddings v. Northwestern Mut. L. Ins. Co. 102 U. S. 112, 26 L. ed. 93-Paine v. Pacific Mut. L. Ins. Co. 2 C. C. A. 463, 10 U. S. App. 256, 51 Fed. 693-Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. McElroy, 28 C. C. A. 371, 49 U. S. App. 548, 83 Fed. 637-Cable v. United States L. Ins. Co. 49 C. C. A. 225, 111 Fed. 29-Whiting v. Massachusetts Mut. supra, 121-125. Necessity of Delivering Policy to Assignee for Creditors, see Assignment for Creditors, 36. Suing in Equity to Compel Delivery and to Recover Amount of Loss in same Suit, see Equity, 27. 129. Where the policy, filled up after the loss, was, by express stipulation, to be held by the agents in their safe for the assured, no actual manual transfer was essential to perfect the latter's title. Franklin F. Ins. Co. v. Colt, 20 Wall. 560, 22: 423 Cited in Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Meier, 28 Neb. 132, 44 N. W. 97. 130. Where a policy of insurance is written at the request of a broker, and delivered to him by the agent of the company on his promise not to regard it as binding until the company shall have inspected and accepted the risk, the policy being subject to immediate cancelation; and the company thereafter promptly inspects and rejects the risk; and the agent of the company so notifies the broker, who thereupon agrees to return the policy; and no premium is charged or paid as between the broker and agent, there is no final and absolute delivery of the policy, but the delivery is conditional only. Hartford F. Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 187 U. S. 467, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 189, 47: 261 Distinguished in Bieber v. Gans, 24 App. D. C. Effect of delivery of policy before payment L. Ins. Co. 129 Mass. 241, 37 Am. Rep. 317 of first premium, contrary to its conditions. -Societe Des Mines D'Argent et Fonderies De Bingham V. Mackintosh, 5 Utah, 577, 18 Pac. 363. · Editorial note. [Consent of person whose life is insured. 56 L.R.A. 585.] Consideration. 126. The promise to give a premium note is a sufficient consideration for the promise to make a policy of insurance. Commercial Mut. M. Ins. Co. v. Union Mut. Ins. Co. 19 How. 318, 15: 636 20: 398 c. Agreements as to, and Payment of, Premium. Sufficiency of Tender of Premium, see supra, 51. Forfeiture for Nonpayment, see infra, VI. c, 2. Letter as Evidence of Tender or Payment, see Evidence, 1384. Lien of Broker on Policy for Premiums, see | should be returned. 132. [On an insurance policy upon a cargo to be "valued as interest shall appear," the premium will vary with changes in the value of the cargo. Pollock v. Donaldson (C. Ct.) 3 Dall. 510, 1: 699] 133-4. Under an open marine policy providing that, in respect to vessels rating lower than A 2, the premiums on risks shall be fixed at the time they are declared or reported, the mere declaration of the ship, on board of which the goods are laden, without payment of the premium which the underwriter has reserved the right to fix, at the time of the declaration of the risk, is not sufficient to complete the contract; hence, where assured refuses to pay the note charged by the insurer at the time of the declaration, upon the ground that the same is unreason able, he cannot hold the insurer liable in case of loss. Orient Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wright use of Maxwell, 23 How. 401, 16: 524 Distinguished in Arnold v. Pacific Mut. Ins. Co. 78 N. Y. 13. Cited in Sun Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wright, 23 How. 413, 16 L. ed. 529-Orient Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wright, 1 Wall. 477, 17 L. ed. 511-Delaware Ins. Co. v. S. S. White Dental Mfg. Co. 65 L.R.A. 394, 48 C. C. A. 392, 109 Fed. 344-Arkansas Ins. Co. v. Bostick, 27 Ark. 545-Scammell v. China Mut. Ins. Co. 164 Mass. 342, 49 Am. St. Rep. 462, 41 N. E. 649-Arnold v. Pacific Mut. Ins. Co. 14 Hun, 86-Cleveland Oil Co. v. Norwich Ins. Soc. 34 Or. 234, 55 Pac. 435. 135. Where an open marine policy provides for a different premium if the vessel has a lower rating than A 2, it is proper to instruct the jury to base their verdict on the fact, to be ascertained by them on the evidence, whether the vessel would or would not have rated below A 2. Orient Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wright use of Maxwell, 1 Wall. 456, 17: 505 136. [When, by the course of trade or the agreement of the parties, the voyage is divided into distinct parts, and on one of these no risk has been run, there should be an apportionment of the premium and part Donath v. Ins. Co. N. A. (Pa. Sup. Ct.) 4 Dall. 463, 1: 910] 137. Where the legal effect of the policy itself was that payment should be made to the company at its domicil, the indorsement on the margin that "all receipts for premiums paid at agencies are to be signed by the president or actuary" is not an agree ment to make any particular agency the legal place of payment. New York L. Ins. Cited in New York L. Ins. Co. v. Eggleston, Co. v. Davis, 95 U. S. 425, 24: 453 96 U. S. 578, 24 L. ed. 843-Whitcomb v. Phoenix Mut. L. Ins. Co. 8 Rep. 643, Fed Cas. No. 17,530-Kenyon v. National Life Asso. 39 App. Div. 286, 57 N. Y. Supp. 60 -Van Bokkelen v. Massachusetts Ben. Asso. 90 Hun, 334, 35 N. Y. Supp. 865-Kenyon v. Knights Templar & M. Mut. Aid Asso. 122 N. Y. 260, 25 N. E. 299. [Payment of premium after death. 14 L.R.A. 283.] 138. Where the terms of a life insurance policy are that the policy shall not take effect until the premium is paid, a compliance with that provision, or a waiver of it, is necessary, to make the policy valid. Giddings v. Northwestern Mut. L. Ins. Co. 102 U. S. 108, 26: 92 Cited in Weinfeld V. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Asso. 53 Fed. 209-Travis v. Nederland L. Ins. Co. 43 C. C. A. 656, 104 Fed. 488 -Miller v. Northwestern Mut. L. Ins. Co. 49 C. C. A. 334, 111 Fed. 469-Westerfield v. New York L. Ins. Co. 129 Cal. 77, 61 Pac. 667-Newcomb v. Provident Fund Soc. 5 Colo. App. 143, 38 Pac. 61. 139. When the insurer's agent instructs the applicant to send him his "check for the premium, and the business is concluded," the mailing of the check constitutes payment, the insured having funds to meet the check. Tayloe v. Merchants' F. Ins. Co. 9 How. 390. 13: 187 Cited in Paine v. Pacific Mut. L. Ins. Co. 2 C. C. A. 461, 10 U. S. App. 256, 51 Fed. 691-Home Protection V. Ala. Avery, 85 351, 7 Am. St. Rep. 54, 5 So. 143-Home Ins. Co. v. Gilman, 112 Ind. 13. 13 N. E. 118 Trager v. Louisiana Equitable I.. Ins. Co. 31 La. Ann. 239-Mallette v. British American Assur. Co. 91 Md. 483, 46 Atl. 1005-White v. Connecticut F. Ins. Co. 120 Mass. 333-Hollowell v. Life Ins. Co. 126 N. C. 404, 35 S. E. 616. 140. Where the policy is delivered with out requiring payment of the premium, the presumption is that a credit was intended, and the policy is valid. Brooklyn Life Ins. Massachusetts Mut. L. Ins. Co. 13 Blatchf. Co. v. Aurora F. & M. Ins. Co. 20 Fed. 235 -Smith v. Provident Sav. Life Assur. Soc. 13 C. C. A. 289, 31 U. S. App. 163, 65 333-Jones v. New York L. Ins. Co. 168 Mass. 248, 47 N. E. 92-Cobbs v. Fire Asso. vacate the contract, or be relied on as a defense to an action upon it. Hodgson v. Marine Ins. Co. 5 Cranch, 100, 3:48 d. Validity. Effect of Warranties and Representations as to Facts Existing upon Issuance of the Policy, see infra, V. What Law Governs, see Conflict of Laws, I. b, 3. Covering Belligerent Property as Neutrals, see Contracts, 392. 143. An instruction to a jury that the assured was bound by his application if it was not avoided for fraud on the part of the agent taking the same, and that it was so avoided, and that therefore the representative of the assured could recover, is incorrect. If the application is avoided, the policy also is avoided. New York L. Ins. Co. v. Fletcher, 117 U. S. 519, 6 Sup. Ct. 29: 934 Rep. 837, 144. A contract of insurance on property covered as neutral, when it was in fact belligerent, is not invalid when its true character and the means taken to protect it have been fairly represented to the insurer. De Valengin v. Duffy, 14 Pet. 282, 10: 457 68 Mich, 464, 36 N. W. 222-New York L. Ins. Co. v. Stone, 42 Mo. App. 387-Western Home Ins. Co. v. Richardson, 40 Neb. 8, 58 N. W. 597-Union L. Ins. Co. v. Haman, 54 Neb. 617, 74 N. W. 1090-Stewart v. Union Mut. L. Ins. Co. 63 Hun, 329, 17 N. Y. Supp. 886-Stewart v. Union Mut. L. Ins. Co. 155 N. Y. 257, 42 L.R.A. 152, 49 N. E. 145. A policy of accident insurance issued 876-East Texas F. Ins. Co. v. Mims, 1 Tex. after the passage of Mo. Rev. Stat. 1879, App. Civ. Cas. (White & W.) § 1323-Wythe-§ 5982, providing that in all suits on poliville Ins. & Bkg. Co. v. Teiger, 90 Va. 280, 18 S. E. 195-Mason v. Citizens' F. M. & L. Ins. Co. 10 W. Va. 578-Eagan v. Etna F. & M. Ins. Co. 10 W. Va. 589. 141. The allowance of credit for the payment of the premium, which the insurer's agents are authorized by general usage to give, does not impair the preliminary contract. Franklin F. Ins. Co. v. Colt, 20 Wall. 560. 22: 423 Cited in Jones v. Etna Ins. Co. 7 Rep. 645, 8 Ins. L. J. 416, Fed. Cas. No. 7,453-Nord Deutscher Lloyd v. Insurance Co. of N. A. cies of insurance on life it shall be no defense that the insured committed suicide unless it be shown that he contemplated suicide when applying for the policy, cannot lawfully restrict the liability of the insurance company to one tenth of the principal sum insured, in the event of suicide not contemplated by the insured at the time application was made for the policy. Whitfield ex rel. Hadley v. Etna L. Ins. Co. 205 U. S. 51: 895 489, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 578, Relief 49 C. C. A. 10, 110 Fed. 429-American 146. The insured cannot be charged with Employers' & L. Ins. Co. v. Fordyce, 62 Ark. 570, 54 Am. St. Rep. 305, 36 S. W. 1051-notice of restrictions in its charter on the Home Ins. Co. v. Gilman, 112 Ind. 14, 13 power of a foreign insurance company, which N. E. 118-Western Assur. Co. v. McAlpin, are not brought home to his notice. 23 Ind. App. 227, 77 Am. St. Rep. 423, 55 F. Ins. Co. v. Shaw, 94 U. S. 574, 24: 291 N. E. 119 Prudential Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, Cited in Continental Fire Asso. V. Masonic 27 Ind. App. 36, 59 N. E. 873-Phenix Ins. Co. v. Munger, 49 Kan. 196, 33 Am. St. Rep. Temple Co. 26 Tex. Civ. App. 141, 62 S. W. 860, 30 Pac. 120-German Ins. Co. v. Ams930. baugh, 8 Kan. App. 201, 55 Pac. 481-Mallette v. British American Assur. Co. 91 Md. 483, 46 Atl. 1005-Western Home Ins. Co. v. Richardson, 40 Neb. 8, 58 N. W. 597— Shear v. Phoenix Mut. L. Ins. Co. 4 Hun, 801-Merserau v. Phoenix Mut. L. Ins. Co. 66 N. Y. 278-Croft v. Hanover F. Ins. Co. 40 W. Va. 517, 52 Am. St. Rep. 902, 21 S. E. 854. 147. Premiums paid by an insolvent for a moderate amount of insurance upon his life in favor of his wife cannot be recovered of her after she has obtained the insurance, where no fraudulent intent on her part or that of the insurance company appears. Central Nat. Bank v. Hume, 128 U. S. 195, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 41, 32: 370 Editorial notes. 142. In an action of covenant on a policy, it is no defense that the premium has not been paid, and that recovery thereof has been enjoined by a court of chancery, where a note for the premium had been given, theness of foreign companies not complied with. amount of which was to be deducted from 20 L.R.A. 405. [Effect on, where statutes regulating busi the sum to be paid for a loss, if any hap- On property illegally used. 40 L.R.A. 845, pened. If the note be never paid, it cannot On life of minor. 57 L.R.A. 496.] e. Construction of Contract in General. Nature of Insurance Contract, see supra, Construction as Matter of General Law; State Decisions not Binding on Federal Parol Evidence to Vary, see Evidence, 1470, 1490-1492. Parol Evidence to Show Insertion by Agent Extrinsic Evidence to Remove Ambiguity, see Evidence, 1633. Question of Law or Fact, see Trial, 304. See also supra, 82; infra, 248, 251, 291, 300, 437-439. 148. The rules established for the construction of written instruments apply to contracts of insurance equally with other contracts. Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. Co. v. Kearney, 180 U. S. 132, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 326, 45: 460 149. A knowledge of the state of the world, of the allegiance of particular countries, of the risks and embarrassments affecting their commerce, of the course and incidents of the trade on which they insure, and the established import of the terms used in their contract, must be imputed to insurers. Buck v. Chesapeake Ins. Co. 1 Pet. 151, 7: 90 Cited in Clark v. Manufacturers' Ins. Co. 8 How. 249, 12 L. ed. 1067-Grant v. Lexington, F. L. & M. Ins. Co. 5 Ind. 28, 61 Am. Dec. 74. 150. In all foreign voyages the underwriters necessarily have it in contemplation that the vessel insured must, or at least may, be subjected to the operation of the laws of the foreign ports which are visited. Peters v. Warren Ins. Co. 14 Pet. 99, 10: 371 Cited in Richelieu & O. Nav. Co. v. Boston M. Ins. Co. 26 Fed. 601. 151. Effect must be given to an insurance contract according to the fair meaning of the words used. Travelers' Ins. Co. v. MeConkey, 127 U. S. 661, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1360, 32: 308 Cited in Mutual L. Ins. Co. v. Kelly, 52 C. C. A. 164, 114 Fed. 281. 152. Contracts of insurance are to be construed according to the sense and meaning of the terms which the parties have used; and, if they are clear and unambiguous, their terms are to be taken and understood in their plain, ordinary, and popular sense. Imperial F. Ins. Co. v. Coos County, 151 U. S. 452, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 379, 38: 231 Cited in Fred J. Kiesel & Co. v. Sun Ins. Of fice, 31 C. C. A. 518, 60 U. S. App. 10, 88 Fed. 246-McGlother V. Provident Mut. Acci. Co. 32 C. C. A. 322, 60 U. S. App. 705, 89 Fed. 689-Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. Co. v. Kearney, 36 C. C. A. 270, 94 Fed. 319-Delaware Ins. Co. v. Greer, 61 LR.A. 140, 57 C. C. A. 193, 120 Fed. 921-Mitchell v. Potomac Ins. Co. 16 App. D. C. 270Melson v. Phenix Ins. Co. 97 Ga. 727, 25 8. E. 189-Rumford Falls Paper Co. v. Fidelity & C. Co. 92 Me. 586, 43 Atl. 503Hoover V. Mercantile Town Mut. Ins. Co. 93 Mo. App. 118, 69 S. W. 42. 153. Policies of insurance must receive a reasonable interpretation, consonant with the apparent object and plain intent of the parties; and, to understand them as the parties understood them, the nature of the contract, the objects to be attained, and all the circumstances must be considered. Etna Ins. Co. v. Boon, 95 U. S. 117, 24: 395 Cited in Kelley v. Mutual L. Ins. Co. 75 Fed. 639. 154. The court may consider the circumstances and damages surrounding the mooring of a vessel at a particular island for insurance policy suspending the risk "while the purpose of construing a provision in an vessel is at Baker's Island loading," where it is contended that the provision applies while the vessel is moored at the island for the purpose of loading, whether loading or not. Reed v. Merchants' Mut. Ins. Co. 95 U. S. 23, 24: 348 Cited in United States v. Peck, 102 U. S. 63, 26 L. ed. 47-Chicago Cheese Co. v. Fogg, 53 Fed. 73-Melvin v. Thomas Potter, Sons & Co. 91 Fed. 154-Rainey v. Hogsett, 40 C. C. A. 339, 100 Fed. 211-Heine SafetyBoiler Co. v. Francis Bros. 105 Fed. 417Western U. Teleg. Co. v. American Bell Teleph. Co. 105 Fed. 687-American Bonding & T. Co. v. Takahashi. 49 C. C. A. 270, 111 Fed. 129-Union Selling Co. v. Jones, 63 C. C. A. 227, 128 Fed. 675-Guaranty Trust Co. v. Atlantic Coast Electric R. Co. 132 Fed. 71-Mason v. Spalding, 7 Mackey, 122-L'Engle v. Scottish Union & Nat. F. Ins. Co. 48 Fla. 95, 67 L.R.A. 587, 37 So. 462-National Elevator & Dock Co. v. Chicago, M. & N. R. Co. 50 Ill. App. 355-Martindale v. Parsons, 98 Ind. 180-Rowe v. Rand, 111 Ind. 211, 12 N. E. 377-Cravens v. Eagle Cotton Mills Co. 120 Ind. 11, 21 N. E. 981-Cottam v. Mechanics & T. Ins. Co. 40 La. Ann. 262, 4 So. 510-Tuxbury v. French, 41 Mich. 13, 1 N. W. 904-Dakin v. Dakin, 97 Mich. 291, 56 N. W. 562Marsh v. Concord Mut. F. Ins. Co. 71 N. H. 256, 51 Atl. 898-Watrous v. McKie. 54 Tex. 71-Buford v. Lonergan, 6 Utah, 305, 22 Pac. 164-Brown v. Markland, 16 Utah. 364, 67 Am. St. Rep. 629, 52 Pac. 597Isham v. Parker, 3 Wash. 764, 29 Pac. 835. 155. If the applicant is a foreigner, with an imperfect knowledge of the language, that circumstance should be considered in determining the meaning of the words he has used. Knickerbocker L. Ins. Co. v. Trefz, 104 U. S. 197, 26: 708 |