ous and unreasonable that the Court ought not to enforce it. An insurance policy is a contract entered into by two parties whereby one undertakes in return for an agreed consideration and upon cer-ain conditions to indemnify the other party against loss and damage by fire.
It comes under the same principles as any other contracts. That is, each party offers terms, and if there is mutual] acceptance the contract is signed by both parties and they are both bound by the terms agreed upon. As Lord Blackburn states in Tomas v. Weems (9 App. vases 683)
"Tt is competent to the contracting parties, if both agree, to make the actual existence of any thing a condition precedent to the inception of any contract, and if they do so the nonexistence of that thing. is a good defence."_... "And it is not of any importance whether the existence of that thing was or was not material: the parties would not have made it a part of the contract if they had not thought it material and they have a right to determine for themselves what they shal] deem material."
And again, Lord Blackburn states in Bettinj v, Gye (1876) 1 Q.b.D. 1870:
"Parties may think some matter, <p-parently of very little importance, essential; and if they sufficiently express an intention to make the literal fulfilment of such a thing a condition precedent, it will be one."? _In the present case this.stipulation or condition is on the face of the contract, it comes in at the very beginning, the inception of ths contract, and is only preceded by naming the premises to be insured. It begins "It is hereby stipulated and agreed." Surely these words on the face of the contract itself are sufficient to incorporate it into the policy by express words; surely it sufficiently expresses an intention that it is a part of the agreed contract, a condition precedent, that the books shall be kept in a different building to that where the insured goods are"kept.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.