Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/779

PCTNAM V. COMMONWEALTH INS. CO. 76.8 �construe3, not only from the actual signification of the words used, but the evident intent of the whole sentence, according to the maxim, 'noscitur a sociis.' The character of the pro- hibition, as to rock oils and their products, is clearly intended to be provided for in the first part of the sentence, and other volatile oils and substances in the last part; and it is absurd to say that the contracting parties intended to repeat in' the same sentence a prohibition which had been clearly and care- fuDy expressed before. Even if this were not so, it would seem that, under subdivision 4 of this policy, it is very doubt- ful whether there would ensue a forfeiture unless the loss occurred during the actual use of the article prohibited upon ïhe premises in question. That clause simply provides for a suspension of the liability of the company while a prohibited article is being used in the premises, and if its use ceases the policy would seem to revive by the force of the agreement itself.» �The defendant excepted to the finding of, fact "that there vas no naphtha or kerosene oil on the premises at the time of the fire, except a small quantity of kerosene;" and to the second conclusion of law "that the use of naphtha or gasoline on the premises, in the manner described, was not a vio- lation of any of the conditions of its policy ; that the articles ivere not kept on the premises within the meaning and intent of the condition of its policy; that the term 'any burning fluid,' used in its policy, does not refer to naphtha;" and, generally, "to the whole of the second conclusion of law, and each part thereof." The exception as to the ûnding of fact in respect to naphtha and kerosene oilisnot insisted on. The referee does not find, as a fact, that any kerosene or naphtha was ever kept on the premises, other than such keeping aa is necessarily involved in the facts found — that kerosene and naphtha were used, as found, to light the store, and that naph- tha was twice used in the store to show ofif a naphtha-burning stove. There is no exception by the defendant to a failure to find any other keeping or any other use of kerosene or naphtha. The question is whether the use in fact found avoided the policy, The policy permits the use of kerosene oil of a cer- ����