as will carry out and effectuate to the fullest extent the intention of the parties, and that no portion of it will receive such a construction as will tend to defeat the obvious general purpose of the parties entering into the contract. Applying these general principles to the construction of this contract generally, and to the particular clauses brought especially to our notice by the pleading, we may say the general object and purpose of this contract was to secure the plaintiffs against loss by fire upon a certain-described property, then in use for particular purposes described in the policy, and that this insurance was effected by the insurance company upon said property upon the condition that the property and its use should not be essentially and materially changed; and applying the rules to the particular clause pleaded by the defendant, the language of which is: “If the above-mentioned premises shall be occupied or used so as to increase the risk; * * * or if the risk be increased by erection of or occupation of neighboring buildings; or if by any means whatever within the control of the assured, without the consent of the company indorsed hereon.”
If we give this clause its literal and restricted meaning, any use whatever of the premises by the defendant, by which the liability to fire was increased to any extent, would avoid the policy; but this would not be in accordance with the rules of construction we have laid down, and it could not be said that such was the sense in which the parties understood and used them at the time of the execution of the contract. We think, therefore, that the terms “increase the risk” must be construed as meaning an essential increase of the risk, and so applying the same rules of construction to the clause of the policy relied upon by the plaintiffs, to-wit: “The insured bas permission to make alterations and repairs incidental to the business.” If we give this clause its literal meaning it would be extended to embrace all alterations which the parties might desire to make connected with the carrying on of the business, although it might increase, to an unlimited extent, the liability of the premises to be destroyed by fire; but such a construction would not be in accordance with the rules already
