Muskegon Nat. Bank, 122 U. S. 501, 7 Cited in Hadley v. Provident Sav. Soc. 90 Fed. 392-Hubbard v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Asso. 40 C. C. A. 669, 100 Fed. 723-State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Robinson, 111 Ala. 486, 20 So. 30-Dennis v. Dennis, 68 Conn. 193, 54 L.R.A. 457, 57 Am. St. Rep. 95, 36 Atl. 34-Sitton v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W. 84 Mo. App. 212-Janneck v. Metropolitan L. Ins. Co. 13 App. Div. 517, 40 N. Y. Supp. 669. 268. Where an applicant for life insurance, in answer to a question whether the assured was and had always been of temperate habits, answered "Yes," it was not error in the court to instruct the jury that, if the habits of the assured, in the usual, ordinary, and every-day routine of his life, were temperate, the representations made are not untrue within the meaning of the policy, although he may have had an attack of delirium tremens from an exceptional over-indulgence. Knickerbocker L. Ins. Co. v. Foley, 105 U. S. 350, 26: 1055 Distinguished in Malicki v. Chicago Guaranty Fund Life Soc. 119 Mich. 156, 77 N. W. 690. Cited in Holtum v. Germania L. Ins. Co. 139 Cal. 647, 73 Pac. 591-Supreme Lodge K. of P. v. Foster, 26 Ind. App. 342, 59 N. E. 877-Henn v. Metropolitan L. Ins. Co. 67 N. J. L. 316, 51 Atl. 689. 50 C. C. A. 546, 112 Fed. 849-Standard Life & Acci. Ins. Co. v. Sale, 61 L.R.A. 539, 57 C. C. A. 421, 121 Fed. 667-Commercial F. Ins. Co. v. Allen, 80 Ala. 577, 1 So. 202 -Kelley v. Life Ins. Clearing Co. 113 Ala. 465, 21 So. 361--Waters v. Supreme Conclave K. of D. 105 Ga. 152, 31 S. E. 155-Masons' Union L. Ins. Asso. v. Brockman, 20 Ind. App. 218, 50 N. E. 493-Northwestern Masonic Aid Asso. v. Bodurtha, 23 Ind. App. 128, 77 Am. St. Rep. 414, 53 N. E. 787-Johnson v. Massachusetts Ben. Asso. 9 Kan. App. 244, 59 Pac. 669-Weil v. New York L. Ins. Co. 47 La. Ann. 1419, 17 So. 853-Tobin v. Modern Woodmen, 126 Mich. 168, 85 N. W. 472-Co-operative Life Asso. v. Leflore, 53 Miss. 15-Aloe v. Mutual Reserve Life Asso. 147 Mo. 575, 49 S. W. 553-Ashford v. Metropolitan L. Ins. Co. 80 Mo. App. 648-Callies v. Modern Woodmen, 98 Mo. App. 529, 72 S. W. 713-Makel v. John Hancock Mut. L. Ins. Co. 95 App. Div. 243, 88 N. Y. Supp. 757-Dupree v. Virginia Home Ins. Co. 32 N. C. 436-Byers v. Farmers' Ins. Co. 35 Ohio St. 619, 35 Am. Rep. 623-Etna L. Ins. Co. v. France, 33 Phila. Leg. Int. 149— Knecht v. Mutual L. Ins. Co. 90 Pac. 121, 35 Am. Rep. 641-Sweeney v. Metropolitan L. Ins. Co. 19 R. I. 172, 38 L.R.A. 297, 61 Am. St. Rep. 751, 36 Atl. 9-Virginia F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Morgan, 90 Va. 293, 18 S. E. 191-Blumer v. Phoenix Ins. Co. 45 Wis. 654 -Boyle v. Northwestern Mut. Relief Asso. 95 Wis. 318, 70 N. W. 351. · Editorial note. Cited in Etna L. Ins. Co. v. France, 91 U. S. Representations as to Title or Interest, see 512, 23 L. ed. 402-Moulor v. American L. Ins. Co. 111 U. S. 341, 28 L. ed. 449, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 466-Phoenix Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Raddin, 120 U. S. 189, 30 L. ed. 646, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 500-Buell v. Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co. 2 Flipp. 12, Fed. Cas. No. 21, 104-Trefz v. Knickerbocker L. Ins. Co. S Ins. L. J. 853, Fed. Cas. No. 14,166-Schultz v. Mutual L. Ins. Co. 6 Fed. 674-Penn Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Mechanics' Sav. Bank & T. Co. 38 L.R.A. 63, 19 C. C. A. 304, 37 U. S. App. 692, 72 Fed. 431-Security Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Webb, 55 L.R.A. 129, 45 C. C. A. 651, 106 Fed. 811-Home L. Ins. Co. v. Myers, supra, 223-226. 270. When a condition of a policy of insurance is that if the property insured should be sold or conveyed, the risk assumed should cease, it ceases when the assured sells, unless the company be notified of the sale, and consent to it, when it may continue for the benefit of the purchaser. Bates v. Equitable F. & M. Ins. Co. 10 Wall. 33, 19: 882 Cited in Smith v. Union Ins. Co. 120 Mass. 91. 271. An agreement under which one is merely to participate in the profits of a partnership does not pass such an interest in the property of the firm as will invalidate a policy of insurance which provides against a transfer or change of title or possession against the real intention of the parties. London Assur. Corp. v. Drennen, 116 U. S. 461, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 442, 29: 688 Cited in Paul v. Cullum, 132 U. S. 544, 33 L. ed. 432, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 151-Duden v. Maloy, 11 C. C. A. 123, 26 U. S. App. 187, 63 Fed. 188-Baker v. Safe Deposit & T. Co. 90 Md. 759, 78 Am. St. Rep. 463, 45 Atl. 1028 -Cannon v. Brush Electric Co. 96 Md. 469, 94 Am. St. Rep. 598, 54 Atl. 121-Heye v. Tilford, 2 App. Div. 350, 37 N. Y. Supp. 751. 272. An agreement by the members of a firm to admit a person into their business, on condition that the company shall become incorporated, and that he shall pay into the firm, for its use, a stated sum of money, which is to be put into the corporation, it being understood that no change shall be made in the name or character of the firm until the corporation shall be formed; and the subsequent payment of the agreed sum, do not make such person a member of the firm, or give him an interest in the partnership property in advance of the creation of the corporation, or so change the title or possession of the property as to invalidate a policy of fire insurance. Drennen v. London Assur. Corp. 113 U. S. 51, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 341, 28: 919 Cited in London Assur. Co. v. Drennen, 116 U. S. 468, 29 L. ed. 689, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 442 -Paul v. Cullum, 132 U. S. 544, 33 L. ed. 430, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 151. 273. A transfer by an insured, without notice to the insurance company, of his entire stock in trade to a firm in which he is a silent partner, discharges the company from all liability under a policy insuring such stock in trade, which provided that it should cease to be in force as to any property insured which should pass from the insured to any other person otherwise than by operation of law, unless notice be given to the company. Royal Ins. Co. v. Martin, 192 U. S. 149, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 247, 48: 385 274. A policy under which a building and a stock in trade contained therein were separately insured for distinct and different amounts is not avoided as respects the insurance on the building by a change in the ownership of such stock in trade without notice to the insurance company, although the policy provides that it shall cease to be in force as to any property thereby insured which shall pass from the insured to any other person otherwise than by due operation of law, unless notice thereof be given to the company. Royal Ins. Co. v. Martin, 192 U. S. 149, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 247. 48: 385 275. A clause avoiding a policy if the property is sold, or any change takes place in title or possession, has no application where, in addition to insuring the interest owner of the assured in the whisky, as and upon commission, the company also assumed the risk of his interest because of the tax on it; and, the whisky having been burned, liability for the tax attached. Germania F. Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 95 U. S. 547, 24: 487 276. Where a policy runs to a receiver in a designated suit, a mere change of receiver does not involve a change in title or possession. Thompson v. Phenix Ins. Co. 136 U. S. 287, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1019, 34: 408 Cited in Small v. Westchester F. Ins. Co. 51 Fed. 795-Georgia Home Ins. Co. v. Bartlett, 91 Va. 312, 50 Am. St. Rep. 832, 21 S. E. 476-Gerling v. Agricultural Ins. Co. 39 W. Va. 700, 20 S. E. 691. 277. It is only when the change in the occupancy of premises containing property insured increases the hazard, that the assured is under an obligation to inform the company thereof. Snell v. Atlantic F. & M. Ins. Co. 98 U. S. 85, 25:52 in case of loss to," "consent is given to the 278. Indorsements on a policy, "payable above indorsement," do not of themselves imply a knowledge of a sale or a consent to insure the purchaser. Bates v. Equitable F. & M. Ins. Co. 10 Wall. 33, 19: 882 Cited in Friemansdorf v. Watertown Ins. Co. 9 Biss. 169, 1 Fed. 70-Delaware Ins. Co. v. Greer, 61 L.R.A. 139, 57 C. C. A. 191, 120 Fed. 919-Atlas Reduction Co. v. New Zealand Ins. Co. 121 Fed. 931-Scania Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 22 Colo. 478, 45 Pac. 431Brunswick Sav. Inst. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 68 Me. 315, 28 Am. Rep. 50Bullman v. North British & M. Ins. Co. 159 Mass. 122, 34 N. E. 169-Clay F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Huron Salt & Lumber Mfg. Co. 31 Mich. 356-Guiterman v. German American Ins. Co. 111 Mich. 627, 70 N. W. 135Kempf v. Farmers Mut. F. Ins. Co. 41 Mo. App. 34-Baldwin v. Phoenix Ins. Co. 60 N. H. 166-Milliken v. Woodward 64 N. J. L. 450, 45 Atl. 796. Editorial notes. [Effect of condition against encumbrances upon renewal, substitution, or alterations of encumbrance. 20 L.R.A. 400. Mortgage as change of title. 38 L.R.A. 562.] 2. Use and Care of Property. See also supra, 232. 279. A violation of any of the prohibitions of a policy of insurance, by any one permitted by the assured to occupy the premises, is a violation by the assured himself. Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. Co. v. Gunther, 116 U. S. 113, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 306, 29: 575 Gunther v. Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. Co. 134 U. S. 110, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 448, 33: 857 Cited in Allen v. Home Ins. Co. 133 Cal. 32. 65 Pac. 138-Norwaysz v. Thuringia Ins. Co. 204 Ill. 344 68 M. E. 551-Thuringia Ins. Co. v. Norwaysz 104 Ill. App. 395-German F. Ins. Co. v. Shawnee County, 54 Kan. 737, 45 Am. St. Rep. 306, 39 Pac. 697 33: 857 Smith v. German Ins. Co. 107 Mich. 298, ther v. Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. Co. 134 U. 30 L.R.A. 378, 65 N. W. 236. S. 110, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 448, Iron safe clause. 280. An assured is chargeable with any acts of his lessee in keeping on the premises any prohibited articles, although they were not intended to be used there, but for light ing other places. Gunther v. Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. Co. 134 U. S. 110, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 448, Editorial notes. Increase of risk. 33: 857 38: 231 [Condition as to keeping and preserving books and papers. 51 L.R.A. 698. When is a building "vacant" or "unoccupied." 2 L.R.A. (N.S.) 517. Effect, on vacancy clause, of tenant's removal without insurer's knowledge. 3 L. R.A. (N.S.) 966. Building in process of erection as vacant. 4 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1137. Necessity of proof of increase of risk to avoid insurance policy because of the vacancy of insured property. 12 L.R.A. (N.S.) 456. Effect upon insurance policy of breach of condition by tenant. 12 L.R.A. (N.S.) 484.] Gunpowder, oils, etc. 281. Under a policy containing the clause "or if gunpowder, phosphorus, saltpetre, or crude earth oil, are kept on the premises, or if camphene, burning fluid, or refined coal, or earth oil, are kept for sale, stored, or used on the premises, in quantities exceeding one barrel, at any time, with out written permission or indorsed upon the policy, then, and in every such case, the policy shall be void," none of the articles mentioned are thereby entirely excluded, but the restriction as to each article is only upon quantities greater than one barrel. Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Slaughter, 12 Wall. 404, 20: 444 282. A privilege to use gasoline, gas, and apparatus for generating it, does not sanction the storage of gasoline, except for actual use in such apparatus. Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. Co. v. Gunther, 116 U. S. 113, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 306, 29: 575 Cited in Fischer v. London & L. F. Ins. Co. 83 Fed. 810--Concordia F. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 4 Kan. App. 13, 45 Pac. 722-Boyer v. Grand Rapids F. Ins. Co. 124 Mich. 460, 83 Am. St. Rep. 338, 83 N. W. 124. 283. A clause written in the margin of a policy, granting a privilege "to keep not exceeding 5 barrels of oil on said premises,” does not dispense with the printed regulations as to precautions in handling or using it. Gunther v. Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. Co. 134 U. S. 110, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 448. 33: 857 284. Where a policy of fire insurance per mits the use of kerosene or like oil "for lights, if the same is drawn and the lamps are filled and trimmed by daylight only." the words "for lights" are restricted in meaning to lighting the insured premises only, and the words "by daylight" are intended to prevent the use of artificial light 285. The selection by the insured, in good faith and with such care as prudent men ought to exercise under like circumstances. of a place in which to keep their books and last inventory, satisfies the requirements of a policy of fire insurance that such books be securely locked in a fireproof safe, or in some secure place not exposed to a fire which would destroy the house where the business is carried on. Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. Co. v. Kearney, 180 U. S. 132, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 326, 45: 460 286. A safe such as was commonly used. and such as, in the judgment of prudent men in the locality of the property insured, was sufficient, is "a fireproof safe," within the meaning of a clause in a policy of fire insurance requiring the insured to keep their books securely locked in such a safe. Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. Co. v. Kearney, 180 U. S. 132, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 326, 45: 460 Cited in Prudential F. Ins. Co. v. Alley, 104 Va. 366, 51 S. E. 812. 3. Change in Condition of Property. 287. Violation of the condition in a policy that it shall be void and of no effect if "me chanics are employed in building, altering, or repairing the premises named therein." without notice to or permission of the insurance company, terminates the contract of the insurer, unless it waives that condition, although in the opinion of the court and the jury the alterations and repairs of the building do not in fact increase the risk. Imperial F. Ins. Co. v. Coos County, 151 U. S. 452, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 379, 38: 231 Cited in Western Assur. Co. v. Redding, 15 C. C. A. 625, 30 U. S. App. 442, 68 Fed. 714 -Jackson v. Fidelity & C. Co. 21 C. C. A. 400, 41 U. S. App. 552, 75 Fed. 366-Lozano v. Palatine Ins. Co. 24 C. C. A. 87, 41 U. S. App. 694, 78 Fed. 280-Fischer v. London & L. F. Ins. Co. 83 Fed. 809-Georgia Home Ins. Co. v. Rosenfield, 37 C. C. A. 99, 95 Fed. 360-Petit v. German Ins. Co. 98 Fed. 803-Union Cent. L. Ins. Co. v. Berlin, 41 C. C. A. 597, 101 Fed. 677-Gross v New York & T. S. S. Co. 107 Fed. 521-Hamburg-Bremen F. Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 4 App. D. C. 86-Hill v. Middlesex Mut. Assur. Co. 174 Mass. 545, 55 N. E. 319--Obio Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Burget, 65 Ohio St. 126, 55 L. R.A. 827, 87 Am. St. Rep. 596. 61 N. E. 712-Virginia F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Morgan, 90 Va. 293, 18 S. E. 191. Editorial notes. Alterations of property. 38: 231 [Effect of temporary condition which ceased before loss, under general provision against increase of risk, or specific provision against certain conditions. 10 L.R.A. (N.S.) 736.] b. Marine Insurance. 1. In General. from which the oil might catch fire. Gun-Risks Excepted in Policy, see infra, XI. c. 8. Federal Question as to, see Appeal and Error, 1358. See also supra, 199, 204; infra, 485. Neutrality of vessel. Condemnation by Foreign Court of Ad- See also supra, 242; infra, 463. 288. Antineutral conduct forfeits a war ranty that the vessel is neutral. Maryland Ins. Co. v. Woods, 6 Cranch, 29, 3: 143 289. Persisting in an intention to enter a blockaded port, after warning, without any act done, is not attempting to enter, within the prohibition of a policy of insurance. Fitzsimmons v. Newport Ins. Co. 4 Cranch, 185, 2: 591 Navigation and voyage. Question of Law or Fact, see Trial, 362. 290. [In a policy of insurance, a warranty Overloading. of 30: 858 292. Articles for which freight is paid are merchandise and part of the ship's cargo, although used as dunnage. A warranty in a ship's policy not to load more than her registered tonnage will be broken by carrying more cargo in weight than such tonnage, although the excess be used as dunnage. Great Western Ins. Co. v. Thwing, 13 Wall. 672, Additional insurance. 20: 607 293. A covenant limiting other insurance on interests in a vessel, or any other insurable interest in said interest, is not broken by insurance on freight to be earned by the voyage. Merchants' Mut. Ins. Co. v. Allen, 122 U. S. 376, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1248, 2. Deviation. 30: 1209 Reformation of Policy after Deviation, see infra, 379, 380. Question of Law or Fact, see Trial, 363. a policy until the deviation becomes actual. Marine Ins. Co. v. Tucker, 3 Cranch, 357, 2: 466 Distinguished in Merrill v. Boylston F. & M. Ins. Co. 3 Allen, 252. Cited in Thames & M. M. Ins. Co. v. O'Connell, 29 C. C. A. 627, 56 U. S. App. 676, 86 Fed. 154 -Bearns v. Columbian Ins. Co. 48 Barb. 453- Lawrence v. Ocean Ins. Co. 11 Johns. 261-Snow v. Columbian Ins. Co. 48 N. Y. 630, 8 Am. Rep. 578. 295. Where the case is one of mere deviation, the law annuls the contract as to the derwriter; and equity, in such case, folfuture, and forfeits the premium to the unlows the law. Hearne v. New England Mut. M. Ins. Co. 20 Wall. 488, Editorial note. Deviation generally. 22: 395 6: 665 Departing from voyage provided poilcy. in 296. A deviation, within the terms of a policy of marine insurance, is a voluntary departure, without necessity or reasonable cause, from the regular and usual course of a voyage. Hostetter v. Park, 137 U. S. 30, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1, 34: 568 Cited in Constable v. National S. S. Co. 154 U. S. 66, 38 L. ed. 912, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1062. 297. Deviation is a voluntary departure, without necessity or reasonable cause, from but to touch at a port, out of the regular the regular and usual course of a voyage; course, to receive part of a cargo, is not a deviation, if within the known usage of trade. Oliver v. Maryland Ins. Co. 7 Cranch, 487, 3: 414 Cited in Hostetter v. Park, 137 U. S. 40, 34 L. ed. 572, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1-Constable v. National S. S. Co. 154 U. S. 66, 38 L. ed. 912, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1062--Thatcher v. McCulloh, Olcott, 370, Fed. Cas. No. 13,862- -Hostetter v. Gray, 11 Fed. 181-Natchez Ins. Co. v. Stanton, 2 Smedes & M. 376, 41 Am. Dec. 592-Morgan v. Dibble, 29 Tex. 120, 94 Am. Dec. 264. 298. It is no deviation, in respect to a Voyage for which marine insurance is taken, to touch and stay at a port out of the vessel's course, if such departure is within the usage of the trade. Hostetter v. Park, 137 U. S. 30, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1, 34: 568 299. Engaging in a voyage different from the representation, whether with or without a charter party, would vitiate the contract. Hughes v. Union Ins. Co. 8 Wheat. 294. 5: 620 300. A policy containing the following clause: "At and from Teneriffe to Havana. and from thence to New York," Held, the taking in of a cargo at Havana did not avoid the contract. Hughes v. Union Ins. Co. 8 Wheat. 294, 5: 620 301. If a vessel sail to a port within the policy, with intent to go to a port not within 294. An intended deviation will not avoid the policy, in case the former should be blockaded, this is not a deviation. Mary- ordinary usage, constitute a deviation. Coland Ins. Co. v. Woods, 6 Cranch, 29, lumbian Ins. Co. v. Catlett, 12 Wheat. 383, 3: 143 Cited in Bearns v. Columbian Ins. Co. 48 Barb. 453. 302. Going out of the way, on a voyage to a port within the policy, to see whether another port is blockaded, is a deviation. Maryland Ins. Co. v. Woods, 6 Cranch, 29, 3: 143 303. The stopping at a place permitted by the policy, to avoid capture, and unloading the cargo, which produced no delay, no increase of risk, and did not alter the voyage, is not such a deviation as to discharge the underwriters, when the vessel was afterwards lost by the perils of the sea. Hughes v. Union Ins. Co. 3 Wheat. 159, 4: 357 Cited in Jolly v. Baltimore Equitable Soc. 1 Harr. & G. 305, 18 Am. Dec. 288-Thorndike v. Bordman, 4 Pick. 484. 305. Whether a delay at a particular port constitutes a deviation depends upon the usage of trade with reference to the object of completing the cargo. Oliver v. Maryland Ins. Co. 7 Cranch, 487, 3: 414 Cited in Columbia Ins. Co. V. Catlett, 12 Wheat. 390, 6 L. ed. 668. 6: 664 Cited in Hostetter v. Gray, 11 Fed. 181-The Giulio, 34 Fed. 911-Burgess v. Equitable Marine Ins. Co. 126 Mass. 81, 30 Am. Rep. 654-Arnold v. Pacific Mut. Ins. Co. 78 N. Y. 17. 309. An idle waste of time after a vessel has completed the purchases for which she entered a port is a deviation which discharges the underwriters. Oliver v. Maryland Ins. Co. 7 Cranch, 487, 3: 414 310. [Delay by a vessel, where she was released after a capture, for a time longer than is necessary to prepare for her voyage and for trading, is a deviation which avoids a policy. Kingston v. Girard, 4 Dall. 274 1: 831] (Sup. Čt. Pa.) 311. The danger which will justify a ves sel in remaining in port a long time, without discharging the underwriters, muse bo obvious, immediate, directly applied to the interruption of the voyage, and imminent; not distant, contingent, and indefinite. Oliver v. Maryland Ins. Co. 7 Cranch, 487, Cited in Riggin v. Patapsco Ins. Co. 7 Harr. & J. 291, 16 Am. Dec. 302-Crosby v. Fitch, 12 Conn. 421, 31 Am. Dec. 745. Necessity sanctioning deviation. 3: 414 312. Necessity alone can sanction a deviation from the terms of an insurance contract limiting the size of the cargo, and such deviation must be commensurate with the vis major producing it. Maryland Ins. Co. v. LeRoy, 7 Cranch, 26, 3: 257 Distinguished in Hughes v. Union Ins. Co. 3 Wheat. 165, 4 L. ed. 360-Jolly v. Baltimore Equitable Soc. 1 Harr. & G. 303, 18 Am. Dec. 288. Taking additional cargo. 313. The discharge of underwriters from liability in case of taking additional cargo depends, not on the increase of the risk, but wholly on departure from the contract. The consequences of such a deviation are per se a discharge of the underwriters; and the de 306. The particular length of time a vessel gree of the variation is immaterial. Marymay wait to take in her cargo, without dis-land Ins. Co. v. LeRoy, 7 Cranch, 26, charging the underwriters, does not depend on the usage of the trade. Oliver v. Mary land Ins. Co. 7 Cranch, 487, 3:414 Cal 3: 257 Cited in Schroeder v. Schweizer Lloyd Trans port Versicherung's Gesellschaft, 66 297, 5 Pac. 478-Turner v. Protection Ins Co. 25 Me. 524, 43 Am. Dec. 294-Thorndike v. Bordman, 4 Pick. 493-Natchez Ins Co. v. Stanton, 2 Smedes & M. 375, 41 Am. Dec. 592-Moore v. Phoenix Ins. Co. 62 N. H. 243, 13 Am. St. Rep. 556-Leitch v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. 66 N. Y. 108-Stewart v. Tennessee M. & F. Ins. Co. 1 Humph. 250. c. Life Insurance. Application as Evidence, see Evidence, 1450. 1. Change in Habits of Assured. 314. A policy providing that it shall be void if the insured shall become so far intemperate as to impair his health is not |