Jonas v. sournmm rss. co. 21 . J. M. Moore, for plaintiffs; . . U. MZ de G. B. Rose, for defendant. » CALDWELL, J., (after stating the facts as above.) Literally, night is that part of the natural day between sunset and sunrise. Are the words "at night," in the policy in suit, to be given that meaning? The object of this clause is to provide against the loss of the merchants’ books by tire. The loss of the books by fire in the day-time is just as injurious as their destruc- tion at night. Why, then, did not the insure.- stipulate that the books should be kept secure from destruction by fire at all ti mes? For the obvious reason that the books must be used during the time that the business is carried on, and to that end they must be kept on the desk or counter of _ the store. But after the business ofthe day is over, and there is no longer occasion to use the books, and the store is closed for the night, there is no. hardship in requiring that they shall not be left to the hazard- of destruction byhre. Besides, as long as there is some one in the store, transacting or conducting anyof the necessary business operations ofthe store, there isthe chance that in case of fire the books may be saved; — ibut that ch·a.nce·_is gone when the store is closed for the night. In the _ construction of contractsthe customary signification of words prevails over the literal, grammaticalpor classical meaning: The situation {of the parties, the subject-matter of the contract, and the customs and usages.: of trade, to which it relates, will all be considered. It is a canon of con~_ struction thatall words, "if they be generahand not express andprecise, shall be restrained unto the fitness of the matter or person." ‘ Numerous illustrations of this rule areto be found in insurance cases. ’ In a policy of insuranceagainst "restraint of kings, princes, and people of what na- · tion, conditionror quality soever," the rule was applied, and "people" was construed to mean ruling powers, and not individual marauders. 2 Whart. Cont. §- 667. A policy covered a ship, and tackle, apparel, and ‘ furniture "of and in the said ship,” and the tackle, apparel, and furniture. ··were taken out of the ship, and put in a warehouse to keep them dryii while the shipwas heeled and cleaned; and while so in the-warehouses they were destroyed by fire. The insurers insisted they were not liable, because the;articles were not destroyed "in the ship.” It will be ob- served that the requirement that the articles should be "in the ship" _ was as explicit as the requirement in the policy in suit thatithe books ' tshall be "in a fire-proof safe at .night." It was found in that case, as it is in this, that the course pursuedby the insured was according to the. necessaryand usual course of business, and the court" held the loss was covered by the poli_cy. " It is certain," said one of the judges, "that—in’ the construction of policies the str·£ctu.m‘jus or apex juris is not -to be laid hold on; but they are to beoonstrued largelyfor the benefit oftrade. ’*, * The construction should be aocordingtto the course of trade."! Boindv. Gon,sales,~ 2 Salk. 445; Wood, Ins. § 59. The construction-con—— itended for by the insurer in this case is not according to theneourse of . vtrade, but so contrary to it, that it wouldginevitably ruin any country;