INSURANCE ON LIVE-STOCK. 161 



that the policy shall cease to cover it the moment it leaves the 

 barn, but covers a loss of the horse while in the farm past- 

 ure.^^* But where an application was for insurance on live 

 stock "while on the premises only" and the policy referred 

 to it as "on premises" described, and further specified that 

 it was "situated. ... on and confined to premises actually 

 occupied by the assured," this was held to limit the liability to 

 a loss occurring on the premises.^^^ 



A provision in a charter that the business of a live-stock 

 insurance company should be confined to certain coun- 

 ties was held, in Pennsylvania, not to prohibit members who 

 have insured horses within those counties from removing 

 them to another county for purposes of sale, and keeping 

 them there a reasonable time, during which time the animals 

 die.^^® And in a later case the court went still further and 

 held that a similar provision will not prevent a person insured 

 from recovering for the death of a horse permanently re- 

 moved beyond the limit prescribed. This was on the ground 

 that there was a doubt whether the designation of the loca- 

 tion was not descriptive rather than a warranty, and "forfeit- 

 ures are not favorites of the law." ^^^ Where a policy is not 

 void by reason of the temporary absence of the animals "in 

 ordinary use" by the owner, it is such use to train for speed 

 a stallion of fancy stock at a driving park.^** 



There are cases holding that where a policy embraces dif- 

 ferent classes of property insured the contract is entire, and 

 when vitiated as to a part the policy is vitiated as to the 

 whole; and therefore, where work horses are insured with 



'"'Haws V. Fire Assn. of Phila., 114 Pa. St. 431; followed in Amer. 

 Cent. Ins. Co. v. Haws (Pa.), 11 Atl. Rep. 107. 



^' Lakings v. Phenix Ins. Co., 94 la. 476, distinguishing the Iowa cases 

 cited supra. 



'"' Coventry Mut. Live Stock Ins. Assn. v. Evans, 102 Pa. St. 281. 



™ Reck V. Hatboro Mut. Live Stock & P. Ins. Co., 163 Pa. St. 443. 



As to the waiver of a condition of non-liability, if the horse should die 

 out of the State, unless written permission given, see 111. L. S. Ins. Co. 

 V. Koehler, 58 111. App. 557. 



'" Eddy V. Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co., 18 Misc. (N. Y.) 297. 

 11 



