Loan Assoc., 175 Ill. 115, 51 N. E. Rep. 717; Niagara Ins. Co. v. Scammon, 100 Ill. 644; Fire Assoc. v. Short, 100 Ill. App. 553; Brown v. Palatine Ins. Co., 89 Tex. 590, 35 S. W. Rep. 1060, 25 Ins. L. J. 812; New Orleans Ins. Co. v. Gordon, 68 Tex. 144, 3 S. W. Rep. 718; Home Ins. Co. v. Tomkies,. 30 Tex. Civ. App. 404, 71 S. W. Rep. 812; German Ins. Co. v. Hayden, 21 Colo. 127, 40 Pac. Rep. 453; Carson v. Insurance Co., 43 N. J. L. 300; Webster v. Dwelling-House Ins. Co., 53 Ohio St. 558, 42 N. E. Rep. 546, 25 Ins. L. J. 488; Bonenfant v. American Ins. Co., 76 Mich. 653, 43 N. W. Rep. 682; Boyd v. Mississippi Home Ins. Co., 75 Miss. 47, 21 So. Rep. 708, 26 Ins. L. J. 708; Stone v. Insurance Co., 69 N. H. 438; Virginia F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 90 Va. 658, 19 S. E. Rep. 454; Morotock Ins. Co. v. Fostoria Novelty Co., 94 Va. 361, 26 S. E. Rep. 850; Cleavenger v. Franklin Ins. Co., 47 W. Va. 595, 35 S. E. Rep. 998; Georgia Home Ins. Co. v. Allen, 119 Ala. 436, 24 So. Rep. 399, 28 Ins. L. J. 199; Holter Lumber Co. v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., 18 Mont. 282, 45 Pac. Rep. 207; Strauss v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 9 Colo. App. 386, 48 Pac. Rep. 822, 26 Ins. L. J. 676; German Ins. Co. v. Seibert, 24 Ind. App. 279, 56 N. E. Rep. 686; Getman v. Guardian Ins. Co., 46 Ill. App. 489; Zeigler v. Clinton Co., 84 Ill. App. 442; Teutonia Ins. Co. v. Bonner, 81 Ill. App. 231; Association v. Smith, 85 Fed. Rep. 401, 29 C. C. A. 223; Ethington v. Dwelling-House Ins. Co., 55 Mo. App. 129; Burnett v. American Central Ins. Co., 68 Mo. App. 343; Rogers v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 121 Ind. 570, 23 N. E. Rep. 498; German Ins. Co. v. Niewedde, 11 Ind. App. 624, 39 N. E. Rep. 534; Ætna Ins. Co. v. Strout, 16 Ind. App. 160, 44 N. E. Rep. 934; Hanover Ins. Co. v. Dole, 20 Ind. App. 333, 50 N. E. Rep. 772; Kratzenstein v. Western Assur. Co., 116 N. Y. 54, 22 N. E. Rep. 221; Mead v. American Ins. Co., 13 App. Div. 476, 43 N. Y. Supp. 334; De Graff v. Queen Ins. Co., 38 Minn. 501, 38 N. W. Rep. 696; Pettit v. State Ins. Co., 41 Minn. 299, 43 N. W. Rep. 378; Fisher v. Crescent Ins. Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 549; Wallace v. German-American Ins. Co., 41 Fed. Rep. 742; Meyer v. Queen Ins. Co., 41 La. Ann. 1000, 6 So. Rep. 899; Insurance Co. v. Wallace, 93 Ind. 7; Insurance Co. v. Hazlett, 105 Ind. 212; Continental Ins. Co. v. Daniel, 78 S. W. Rep. 866 (Ky.); L'Engle v. Scottish Union & Nat. Ins. Co., Fla. 37 So. Rep. 462; German-American Ins. Co. v. Yeagley, Ind. 71 N. E. Rep. 897; London & Lancashire Ins. Co. v. Davis, Tex. Civ. App. 84 S. W. Rep. 260;

Howerton v. Iowa State Ins. Co.,
Rep. 27.

Mo. App.

,80 S. W.

,

2. Matthews v. American Central Ins. Co., 154 N. Y. 456, 48 N. E. Rep. 751; Walradt v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 136 N. Y. 375, 32 N. E. Rep. 1063, 22 Ins. L. J. 81. And see Read v. Washington Ins. Co., 138 Mass. 572; Maisel v. Fire Assoc., 59 App. Div. 461, 69 N. Y. Supp. 181; Buffalo Elevating Co. v. Prussian National Ins. Co., 64 App. Div. 182, 71 N. Y. Supp. 918, affd., 171 N. Y. 25.

3. Mead v. American Ins. Co., 13 App. Div. 476, 43 N. Y. Supp. 334; Forest City Ins. Co. v. Hardesty, 182 Ill. 39, 55 N. E. Rep. 139, affg. 77 Ill. App. 413; Stone v. Granite State Ins. Co., 69 N. H. 438, 45 Atl. Rep. 235; Hoffman v. Ætna Ins. Co., 32 N. Y. 413; Wallace v. German-American Ins. Co., 41 Fed. Rep. 742; Boon v. Etna Ins. Co., 40 Conn. 575.

4. London Assur. Co. v. Thompson, 170 N. Y. 94, 62 N. E. Rep. 1066, affg. 54 App. Div. 637, 67 N. Y. Supp. 1138.

RULE 18.

If Policy Requires Construction Courts Will Sustain the Contract in Preference to Making it Forfeit.

If an insurance policy has inconsistent provisions or is so framed as to be fairly open to construction, that view should be adopted, if possible, which will sustain rather than forfeit the contract.

McMaster v. New York Ins. Co., 183 U. S. 25, 40, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 10; Snyder v. Dwelling-House Ins. Co., 59 N. J. L. 544, 37 Atl. Rep. 1022, 26 Ins. L. J. 905; Quinn Ins. Co. v. Excelsior Milling Co., Kans. 76 Pac. Rep. 423. And see Rule 17 and cases cited thereunder.

RULE 19.

Courts Will Follow Construction of the Parties.

Where language is doubtful or ambiguous the courts will follow the construction of the parties as shown by their acts.

Insurance Co. v. Dutcher, 95 U. S. 269. And see Steen v. Niagara Ins. Co., 89 N. Y. 315; Amazon Ins. Co. v. Wall, 31 Ohio St. 628; Frankenthal v. Guardian Assur. Co., 76 Mo. App. 15; Lawrence v. Niagara Ins. Co., 2 App. Div. 267, 37 N. Y. Supp. 811, affd. on opinion below, 154 N. Y. 752.

RULE 20.

Conflict Between Written or Descriptive Part and Printed Conditions.

The specially written or descriptive part of the policy, inserted in the blank left for the purpose, or a "rider," prevails over and supersedes the printed terms and conditions wherever they conflict;1 for instance, where building is insured as a paint shop or a factory, and benzine is necessarily used in such occupation, the printed clause prohibiting the use of benzine is rendered inoperative; and so where the description covers and includes the prohibited article;3 and so where the property is described in substance as belonging to others than the insured it renders inoperative the clause requiring sole and unconditional ownership; but this rule applies only where the conflict is irreconcilable.5

1. Benedict v. Ocean Ins. Co., 31 N. Y. 389; Fire Ins. Assoc. v. Merchants' Transp. Co., 66 Md. 339; Goss v. Citizens' Ins. Co., 18 La. Ann. 97; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 5 Minn. 492; Mascott v. Granite State Ins. Co., 68 Vt. 253, 35 Atl. Rep. 75; Hagan v. Scottish Ins. Co., 186 U. S. 423, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 862; Johnson v. Insurance Co., 118 N. C. 643; Tubb v. Insurance Co., 106 Ala. 651; Broadwater v. Lion Ins. Co., 34 Minn. 465; Russell v. Manufacturers & B. Ins. Co., 50 Minn. 409, 52 N. W. Rep. 906; Joy v. Pennsylvania Ins. Co., 35 Mo. App. 165; Reynolds v. Commerce Ins. Co., 47 N. Y. 597; Haws v. St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co., 130 Pa. St. 113, 15 Atl. Rep. 915; Schreiber v. German-American Ins. Co., 43 Minn. 367, 45 N. W. Rep. 708.

2. Mascott v. First National Ins. Co., 69 Vt. 116, 37 Atl. Rep. 255; Viele v. Germania Ins. Co., 26 Iowa, 91; Archer v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 43 Mo. 434; Faust v. American Ins. Co., 91 Wis. 158.

3. American Central Ins. Co. v. Greene, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 531, 41 S. W. Rep. 74; Mascott v. First National Ins. Co., 69 Vt. 116, 37 Atl. Rep. 255; Harper v. Albany Ins. Co., 17 N. Y. 194; Hall

v. Insurance Co. of N. A., 58 N. Y. 292; Collins v. Insurance Co., 79 N. C. 279; Carrigan v. Lycoming Ins. Co., 53 Vt. 418; · Stout v. Commercial Union Assur. Co., 12 Fed. Rep. 554; Barnum v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 97 N. Y. 188; Plinsky v. Germania Ins. Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 47; Cassimus v. Scottish Ins. Co., 135 Ala. 256, 33 So. Rep. 163; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Flemming, 65 Ark. 54, 44 S. W. Rep. 464; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Walters, 24 Ind. App. 87, 56 N. E. Rep. 257. See "Exemptions, Exceptions and Limitations."

4. West Branch Lumbermen's Exchange v. American Ins. Co., 183 Pa. St. 366, 38 Atl. Rep. 1081, 27 Ins. L. J. 305. And see Jefferson Ins. Co. v. Cotheal, 7 Wend. 72.

5. Jackson v. British-American Ins. Co., 106 Mich. 47, 63 N. W. Rep. 899; Boyd v. Mississippi Home Ins. Co., 75 Miss. 47, 21 So. Rep. 708, 26 Ins. L. 708. See Rule 9.

RULE 21.

Admission of Parol Evidence to Explain Ambiguity. When meaning of the insurance contract is doubtful or capable of two meanings the circumstances surrounding the parties when the contract was made and affecting the subject to which it relates, form a sort of context that may be resorted to in arriving at the meaning of the contract;1 while in such a case parol evidence is admissible to place the court in position of the parties to enable it to appreciate the force of the words used, neither party can be permitted to state what he understood or intended,2 except as bearing on an issue of a conditional delivery of the contract itself as a contract.3

1. Bole v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 159 Pa. St. 53, 28 Atl. Rep. 205, 23 Ins. L. J. 857; Boyd v. Mississippi Home Ins. Co., 75 Miss. 47, 21 So. Rep. 708, 26 Ins. L. J. 708; McKeesport Machine Co. v. Ben Franklin Ins. Co., 173 Pa. St. 53, 34 Atl. Rep. 16; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Belt R. Co., 82 Ill. App. 265, affd., 182 Ill. 33; New York Belting Co. v. Washington Ins. Co., 10 Bosw. 428. And see Reynolds v. Commerce Ins. Co., 47

N. Y. 606; Ludwig v. Jersey City Ins. Co., 48 N. Y. 379; Mayor v. Exchange Ins. Co., 3 Keyes, 436; Weisenberger v. Harmony Ins. Co., 56 Pa. St. 442; Haws v. Philadelphia Fire Assoc., 114 Pa. St. 431; Bryce v. Lorillard Ins. Co., 55 N. Y. 240; Carrigan v. Lycoming Ins. Co., 53 Vt. 418; Liverpool, L. & G. Ins. Co. v. Van Os, 63 Miss. 431; L'Engle v. Scottish Union & Nat. Ins. Co., Fla. 37 So. Rep. 462.

,

2. Rickerson v. Hartford Ins. Co., 149 N. Y. 307, 43 N. E. Rep. 856; Rickerson v. German-American Ins. Co., 6 App. Div. 550; Montgomery v. Firemen's Ins. Co., 16 B. Mon. 427, 441.

3. Underwood v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 161 N. Y. 424, 55 N. E. Rep. 936. And see Hartford Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 187 U. S. 467, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 189.

RULE 22.

When Language Plain and Clear Evidence of Usage or Custom not Admissible.

Where the contract embodies in clear and positive terms the intention of the parties it cannot be varied by evidence of usage or custom.

Grace v. American Central Ins. Co., 109 U. S. 283; Hearne v. Ins. Co., 20 Wall. 488; Waxahachie First Nat. Bank v. Lancashire Ins. Co., 62 Tex. 461; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Munger, 49 Kans. 178, 30 Pac. Rep. 120; Bornzewski v. Middlesex Assur. Co., Mass. 72 N. E. Rep. 250; Home Ins. Co. v. Continental Ins. Co., 180 N. Y. 389, 73 N. E. Rep. 65; Ohio Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Vogel, Ind. App. 73 N. E. Rep. 612.

RULE 23.

When Evidence of Usage or Custom Admissible When Binding. Parol evidence of usage or custom may be admissible in cases of doubtful meaning when the custom is reasonable, uniform, and well settled; but it is not binding upon the insured when it was not known to him at time of the issue of the policy, unless it was so generally known as to raise a presumption that the contract was made in reference to it; the phrase "any usage or custom of trade or manufacture to the con