1 will first dea] with the stipulation as to the place for keeping the books. The plaintiff stated in evid-trice that this stipulation was stamped on the policy by a rubber stamp. But it is not so. It is typewritten on the face of the policy on the front sheet, in a blank space in a printed form, and follows another paragraph stating the buildings and goods insured. It is in the same type as that used throughout the policy for filling in the particular details of the insur. ance in. the blank spaces in the printe{ form.
The question I have to decide is whether a. breach of this stipulation or condition acts as a forfeiture of the amount due on the policy. On the back of the policy are a number of printed "conditions and stipulations upon which this policy is granted," and on the front page of the Policy is printed "This insurance shall at all times and under all circumstances be subject to the conditions and stipulations printed on the back hereof, which conditions and stipulations constitute the basis of the insurance and are to be considered as incorporated in and forming part of this policy."
But the stipulation in question does not form part of the conditions printed on the back of this policy. It has been held that it is not necessary that a stipulation should appear on the face of the policy to make it a condition precedent. It may be endorsed upon the policy, or may be contained in another and separate document; but neverthe-Jess it must be incorporated into the policy by express wards, by attachment to the policy, or otherwise. And where a stipulation relates to matters which clearly go to the root of the contract and are essential to the existence of liability on the part of the insurers it will be construed as a condition precedent on the ground that the parties cannot have intended its non fulfil. ment to have any other result.
But a stipulation wil} not be enforced if it appears to be so caprici-
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.