"Now the above articles are not necessarily drugs and medicines. The prohibition therefore is not against keeping them as drugs and medicines where a pound of saltpetre would be as harmless as a pound of alum, but against keeping them as articles of danger. With this construction the policy contract is just and reasonable; otherwise the policy insures saltpetre, and yet forbids the keeping of it. There is no allegation that it was kept otherwise than as a drug, and no objection is made to the quantity, and no pretense that any harm resulted from it. If the president of the defendant company had written after the fire as he did before, that his company would not insist upon technicalities or take advantage of inadvertences where no harm had resulted, it would have been doing gracefully what the courts will compel to be done, whether or no. A substantial compliance with a contract is all that is required in any case. Where there has been a substantial compliance and good faith, technicalities will be disregarded by the courts. The saltpetre which was in stock as a drug, kept and sold as a drug, was insured; it was forbidden to be kept or used otherwise than as a drug, and in such manner, or quantity, or for such purpose as would increase the risk.

"Wood on Insurance, page 840, is express authority for what I have said. 'Where a policy is issued upon a stock of goods, such as are usually

kept in a country store, it is held that all such goods as usually form a part of such a stock may be kept, although prohibited to be kept by the printed terms of the policy.

*

And when a policy covers a stock of merchandise which is in fact kept in a country store, although the words, such as are usually kept in a country store, are not used, the policy will not be invalidated by the keeping of articles embraced under the list of hazards, if the articles so kept are usually kept in such a store, although in the printed provisions of such policy, the keeping of such articles is specially prohibited.'

"In our case saltpetre was on hand as a part of the stock of drugs at the time the policy issued; it is usually kept in drug stores, and it was always kept on hand in small quantities for retail as a drug; the stock of drugs was insured; and although it was specially prohibited in the printed terms, it does not avoid the policy according to authority just quoted, for which he cites a number of cases.

* *991

It appears from this case that when a policy is drawn to cover a "stock of drugs and medicines in the house, &c.," whatever is properly included within the limits of that description, so written in, is covered by the policy; notwithstanding the fact that the given article is included in a list, set out in the printed part of the policy, speci1 Collins v. Farmville Insurance and Banking Co., 79 N. C. 279, 28 Am. Rep. 322.

fying things which must not be kept by the insured, under a condition that a violation of that provision shall render the policy void.

In such cases not only is the given article, if kept and used only as a drug, covered by the policy, but it is held, also, that the keeping of that article merely as a drug and not in quantities sufficient to increase the risk shall not operate to render the policy void. This conclusion is based on the principle that the written part of the policy expressing most directly the intention of the contracting parties, must control the printed part of the document. Saltpetre was admitted to be a drug and all drugs contained in the house were clearly included in the description of the property to be insured.

Such questions should be avoided as far as possible by a more specific description, in the policy, of the property to be insured.

It may be well to state here that it is a vital principle in insurance law that the party seeking insurance shall act in the utmost good faith, and shall conceal nothing from the insurer that would tend to increase the risk assumed.

In the foregoing case it appears that the policy was drawn to cover only the drugs and medicines contained in the building, when nearly onehalf of the stock of goods consisted of articles not included within those terms. This fact occasioned a serious loss to the plaintiff druggist,

and it is a point of some interest to owners of drug stores desiring to effect safe insurance on an entire stock of goods.

The case of Carrigan v. Lycoming Fire Ins. Co., 53 Vermont, page 418, 38 Am. Rep. 687, throws some light upon the force to be given to terms used in the policy in describing the goods intended to be insured.

In this case the policy was written for $1200.00 covering, as written in, "stock in trade, consisting principally of groceries, provisions, drugs and medicines, fancy goods, and such other merchandise as is usually kept in a country store, including wines and liquors, * if the assured shall keep gunpowder, benzole, etc., sion in this policy, then, and in every such case, this policy shall be void."

*

*

*

*

* * benzine,

without written permis

The stock of goods was burned and the insured sued the company for the amount of the policy. Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant and the case was appealed.

In rendering its judgment the Appellate Court said: "The defense claimed that the contract, and the claim under it, embraced liquors kept for sale contrary to law, and the fixtures used in such illegal traffic, which was carried on by the plaintiff; and that by reason of such illegality the policy was null and void.

"We think that a contract directly insuring

liquors intended for illegal sale in violation of the law of the State is invalid. Such contracts are made in order to afford the assured protection in his illegal acts. Shaw, Ch. J., says: 'Where the direct purpose of a contract is to affect, advance or encourage acts in violation of law, it is void. But if the contract sought to be enforced is collateral and independent, though in some measure connected with acts done in violation of law, the contract is not void.' Boardman v. Merrimack Mutual Ins. Co., 8 Cush. 583. This principle has been applied to contracts of insurance against fire, by the courts of Massachusetts, in several recent cases. In Kelly v. Home Ins. Co., 97 Mass., 288, the policy was solely upon liquors and the casks containing them; and in Johnson and another v. Union M. & F. Ins. Co., and Lawrence v. National Fire Ins. Co., 127 Mass., 555, and notes on page 557, upon billiard and drinking saloons, unlicensed, kept in violation of law. At the time the policies in these cases were issued, it must have been apparent to the insurers that the object of the contracts was illegal, unless the insured were duly licensed; and the cases do not show that any information upon that subject was sought for; and the insured would have had no cause for complaint, in case of loss, if the defendants insisted upon the illegal nature of the business as a defense.