Gggyjyj
144 FBDBBAL BEPOETBBbhhhujbhjk . �to the jury and a verdict was directed for the plaintifif. As the questions which are actually presented ia the bill of ex- ceptions are neither novel nor intricate, it is not necesaary, in my judgment, to consider show an oral promise or agreement, alleged to have been made by the plaintiff prior to the issuing of the policy and not inserted therein, that upon the future happening of a certain event the policy should beeome void ? The policy was issued in accordance with the permission and authority conferred by the defendant. There was no mistake in its terms, which were clear and definite. The defendant did not intend to insert the oral condition in the policy. The policy did contain numerous express condi- tions, upon the happening of which it should beeome void. The decision in Insurance Company v. Mowry, 96 U. S. 544, is decisive upon the point. �2. Was evidence admissible of an alleged custom of Insur- ance companies, alleged to have been known to the agent of the plaiatiff, that upon the happining of a future event the policy should beeome void, which condition was not inserted among the numerous, detailed, and clearly-expressed condi- tions subsequent to the policy. This unexpressed condition was, in my opinion, inconsistent with the written terms of the contract, and waa excluded therefrom by necessary implica- tion, for the policy apparently fully expresses the terms upon which it was issued, and the conditions upon which it was to beeome void. It is not admissible to add to the carefully- drawn and accurately-defined provisions of an express con- tract, like an Insurance policy, a new stipulation contained in an unexpressed custom. Partridge v. Ins. Co. 15 Wall. 573 ; Oelricks v. Ford, 23 How. 49. �3. Should the question of termination.by mutual consent have been submited to the jury ? It is not necessary to con- sider whether this defence was set up in the notice, for the evidence of termination by consent was so scanty that there was no real question to submit. Pleasants t. Faut, 22 Wall. 116; Commissioners v. Çlark, 94 U. S. 278. ����
