St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. v. Penman

I am unable to agree with the majority of the court in the conclusion at which they arrive in this case. The court below is reversed, and the reasons assigned are that:

“The policy prohibited the keeping of blasting powder on the insured premises, and that parol testimony was improperly admitted to vary the terms .of the policy, and that the trial court should have directed a verdict for the defendant in accordance with its request.”

It is conceded to be a binding rule' that' “in courts of law the written contract shall be regarded as the sole repository’of the intentions of the parties, and…