APPLICATION. The act of making a re quest for something. It need not be in writ-. ing ; State v. Stiles, 12 N. J. L. 296.
A written request to have a certain quan tity of land at or near a certain specified place, under a statute for location of public. land of the state. Duncan's Lessee v. Curry, 3 Binn. (Pa.) 14 ; Biddle's Lessee v. Dougal, 5 Binn. (Pa.) 142.
A petition. Scott v. Strobach, 49 Ala. 477, 489.
The use or disposition made of a thing.
In Insurance. The preliminary statement made by a party applying for an insurance on life, or against fire. It usually consists of written answers to interrogatories pro posed by the company applied to, respecting the proposed subject. It corresponds to the "representations" preliminary to maritime Insurance. It is usually referred to express ly in the policy as being the basis or a part of the contract, and this reference creates in effect a warranty of the truth of the state ments. In an action on a policy, the applica tion and policy must be construed as one in strument; Studwell v. Association, 19 N. Y. Supp. 709. If the policy does not make the answers a part of the contract, this will have only the effect of representation; May, Ins. § 159; Columbia Ins. Co. v. Cooper, 50 Pa. 331. To constitute a warranty it must be made a part of the policy ; Goddard v. In surance Co., 67 Tex. 69, 1 S. W. 906, 60 Am. Rep. 1. A mere reference in the policy to the application does not make its answers warranties; it is a question of intention; Jefferson Ins. Co. v. Cotheal, 7 Wend. (N. 72, 22 Am. Dec. 567; Sheldon & Co. v. Insur ance Co., 22 Conn. 235, 58 Am. Dec. 420; Commonwealth's Ins. Co. v. Monninger, 18 Ind. 352; the courts tend to consider the answers representations, rather than warran ties, except in a clear case; Campbell v. In
surance Co., 98 Mass. 381; Miller v. Insur ance Co., 31 Ia. 216, 7 Am. Rep. 122 ; Wilson v. Insurance Co., 4 R. I. 141. An oral mis representation of a material fact will defeat a policy on life or against fire, no less than in maritime insurance, on the ground of fraud; 1 Phill. Ins. § 650. Misrepresentation as to one of several buildings all being in one policy cannot defeat a recovery on another; Rogers v. Insurance Co., 121 Ind. 570, 23 N.
E. 498. See REPRESENTATION; MISREPRE SENTATION; INSURANCE.
Of Purchase-Money. The disposition made of the funds received by a trustee on a sale of real estate held under the trust.
Where there is a general power to sell for the payment of debts, or debts and legacies, the purchaser need not look to the applica tion of the purchase-money; Bruch v. Lantz, 2 Rawle (Pa.) 392, 21 Am. Dec. 458 ; Andrews v. Sparhawk, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 393 ; 1 Bess. 69 ; Hauser v. Shore, 40 N. C. 357; Gardner v. Gardner, 3 Mas. 178, Fed. Cas. No. 5,227; or so as to legacies where there is a trust for reinvestment; Wormley v. Wormley, 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 421, 5 L. Ed. 651; Grosvenor & Co. v. Austin's Adm'rs, 6 Ohio 114, 25 Am. Dec. 743 ; where the trust is to pay speci fied debts, the purchaser must see to the application of the purchase-money; Gardner v. Gardner, 3 Mas. 178, Fed. Cas. No. 5,227; Cadbury v. Duval, 10 Pa. 267 ; 1 Pars. Eq. 57; Duffy v. Calvert, 6 Gill (Md.) 487. See note to Elliot v. Merryman, 1 Lead. Cas. Eq. 74; Perry, Trusts; Adams, Eq. *155. The doctrine is abolished in England by 23 & 24 Viet. c. 145, § 29, and is of little importance in the United States; Bisp. Eq. 278.
Of Payments. See APPROPRIATION.