A question may arise in fire policies, as in marine policies, in regard to the termini of the risk. This must generally relate to the time when the policy begins, when it attaches, and when it terminates. (t) It may also relate to circumstances, if the policy provides expressly or by sufficient implication, that it * shall attach when certain circumstances occur, and shall continue only so long as they exist. Or it may apply to place, if that be designated or indicated.2 In a recent English case, a ship lying in the Victoria Dock, was insured for three months; with liberty to go into a dry dock for repair. The ship went down the Thames to a dry dock, but could not get in without having her paddles removed. This was done, and she went that is used "for the manufacture of lead pipe only," includes the manufacture of wooden reels on which to coil the lead pipe, if essential to the reasonable and proper carrying on of the business of manufacturing lead pipe. Collins v. Charlestown Ins. Co. 10 Gray, 155. A building was insured as holding machinery for making barrels. The policy provided that if the premises were appropriated or used for carrying on the trade of a carpenter, the policy, so long as the premises were so appropriated or used, should cease and be of no effect. Machinery to make boxes was put in, and boxes were made. But for two months before the fire, the machinery, though ready for use, was not used. The insurers were held. U. S. F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Kimberly, 34 Md. 224.

(ss) Kent v. London Ins. Co. 26 Ind. 204.

(t) A policy of insurance which is expressed to be from the first day of a specified month in a given year to the same day of the same month and year, may be shown by reference to the indorsements made by the insurers on the back of the policy, to the application which is made part of the policy, and to the amount of the premium and deposit note, to be an insurance for a different time. Liberty Hall Association v. Hou-satonic Ins. Co. 7 Gray, 261.

1 Thus a continuing warranty in a policy of insurance, the breach of which (whether injurious to the insurer or not) avoids the policy, being in the nature of a forfeiture, must be construed as strongly against the insurer, and as favorably for the insured, as its terms will reasonably permit. Wakefield v. Orient Ins. Co. 50 Wis. 532.

2 The removal of goods insured from the place described will avoid the policy unless the insurance company, after notice thereof, recognizes its validity. Harris v. Royal Ins. Co. 53 la. 236; Williamsburg Ins. Co. v. Cary, 83 Ill. 453. But where a policy covered a phaeton "contained in a frame barn," and the phaeton was. burned while at a shop undergoing repairs, it was held, nevertheless, that the insured could recover for the loss. McCluer v. Girard Ins. Co. 43 la. 349. In Sawyer v. Dodge County Ins. Co. 37 Wis. 503, a policy on wheat was held to cover wheat on after-acquired land, though not adjoining the rest of the farm; while in Providence, etc. R. Co. v. Yonkers Ins. Co. 10 R 1 74, it was decided otherwise, although such after-acquired land adjoined.

in, and was repaired. She then came out into the Thames, and while stopping there to have her paddies replaced, took fire and was destroyed within the three months. The plaintiff sued the insurers, and obtained a verdict; but the Court of Common Pleas set the verdict aside, and entered a non-suit, on the ground that the policy covered the ship while in the Victoria Dock, and while in the dry dock, and while going to the dry dock and returning from it, but not while she was stopping in the river to have her paddles replaced. (u) 1 We cannot but think this decision open to doubts.