vacant is not sufficient to save the forfeiture of the policy. Bonenfant v. American F. Ins. Co. 76 Mich. 653, 43 N. W. 682.
Even though the person left in charge lives within the same inclosure. Burner v. German-American Ins. Co. supra.
Even the fact that the insured, or some member of his family, or his hired man, visits the dwelling house every day to see that things are all right is not sufficient to save forfeiture. Weidert v. State Ins. Co. 19 Or. 261, 20 Am. St. Rep. 809, 24 Pac. 242.
A vacancy beyond the time limit, without a permit or consent, forfeits the policy. Piscatauga Savings Bank v. Traders Insurance Co. 8 Kan. App. 241, 55 Pac. 496; Examiner Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Burton, Tex. Civ. App. 39 S. W. 319; Joyce on Ins. Co. 4 p. 3802.
If a house is left for an entire season with no one in it, a policy containing a condition that it shall be void if the premises become “vacant” or “unoccupied” is avoided, though the furniture be left therein. Herman v. Adriatic Fire Ins. Co. 85 N. Y. 162, 39 Am. Rep. 644; Alston v. Old State Ins. Co. 80 N. C. 326; Fitzgerald v. Connecticut Fire Ins. Co. 64 Wis. 463, 25 N. W. 785; Joyce on Ins. Vol. 4, p. 3802.
And merely leaving furniture where.the building is unoccupied at night is insufficient, even though a hired man has general oversight of the property and frequently inspects the same. Hanscom v. Home Ins. Co. 90 Me. 333, 38 Atl. 324, 27 Ins. L. J. 19; Joyce on Ins. Co. Vol. 4, p. 3803; Soubert v. Fidelity-Phoenix Ins. Co. 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 58-59.
If the policy has become void by reason of a violation of a condition against nonoccupancy without the consent of the insurer indorsed on the policy it is not revived when occupation of the premises is subsequently resumed. Joyce on Ins. Vol. 4 p. 3800; Moore v. Phoenix Ins. Co. 62 N. H. 240, 13 Am. St. Rep. 556; See §§ 2239, 2240 herein; East Texas Ins. Co. v. Kempner, 87 Tex. 229, 47 Am. St. Rep. 99, 27 S. W. 122; Joyce on Ins. Vol. 4, p. 3800.
A statement in answer to an inquiry in an application made by stipulation a part of the policy, but which partially discloses the truth as to the amount of mortgages or the ¢haracter of the same, and which is calculated to induce the belief that the entire truth has been told concerning the same, when as a fact it has not and there are other mortgages, or mortgages to a larger amount than stated, will avoid the policy. 14 R. C. L. 1062; Connecticut, Treadway v. Hamilton Mutual Ins. Co. 29 Conn. 68; Iowa, Glade v. Germania Fire Ins. Co. 56 Ia. 400, 9 N. W. 320;
