Keeping on hand certain articles is usual ly prohibited, either specifically or as a class. The breach of a condition against keeping in flammable substances does not prevent re covery, when the use of the particular sub stance was a necessary and usual incident of the subject insured ; Marjl v. Ins. Co., 95 Ga. 604, 23 S. E. 463, 30 L. R. A. 835, 51 Am. St. Rep. 102 ; as the use of gasoline, in a silver plating business, one day's supply only being brought in at once ; Fraim v. Ins. Co., 170 Pa. 151, 32 AU. 613, 50 Am. St. Rep. 753 ; or keeping an inflammable substance for sale as was customary where there was a clause, written in ink on the policy, containing the words "merchandise such as is usually kept in a country store ;" Yoch v. Ins. Co., 111 Cal. 503, 44 Pac. 189, 34 L. R. A. 857 ; Faust v. Ins. Co., 91 Wis. 158, 64 N. W. 883, 30 L. R. A. 783, 51 Am. St. Rep. 876 ; Mascott v. Ins. Co., 68 Vt. 253l'35 Atl. 75.
The use of a gasoline torch by a painter will not avoid the policy, where the work has continued, for less than the fineen days al lowed for repairs ; Garrebrant v. Ins. Co., 75 N. J. L. 577, 67 AU. 90, 12 L. R. A., (N. S.) 443 ; but the storing of seed cotton by a ten ant, against a provision in the policy, even without the knowledge of the insured, will avoid it ; Edwards v. Ins. Co., 128 Ga. 353, 57 S. E. 707, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 484, 119 Am. St. Rep. 385, 10 Ann. Cas. 1036 ; a tempora ry increase of hazard, which ceases before the loss, will not prevent recovery ; Sumter Tobacco Warehouse Co. v. Assurance Cot, 76 S. C. 76, 56 S. E. 654, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 736, 121 Am. St. Rep. 941, 11 Ann. Cas. 780. Where a typewritten rider stipulated for in surance on such articles as are usually kept in a painter's shop, it prevailed against a printed condition against keeping benzine on the premises ; Mascott v. Ins. Co., 68 Vt. 253, 35 Atl. 75.
As to hazardous and extra-hazardous risks, generally, see RISKS AND PERILS.
Iron Safe Clause. In order to promote the accurate adjustment of the loss, there is usu ally included in policies of insurance, on such property as a stock of merchandise, what is known as the "iron safe clause," which, in one form or another, provides that the books of the insured showing all business transac tions, and the last inventory of the business, shall be kept in a fireproof safe at night and when the store is not opened for business. Such a clause is an express promissory war ranty ; Farmers' Fire Ins. Co. v. Bates, 60
Ill. App. 39 ; Home Ins. Co. of New Orleans v. Cary, 31 S. W. 321; but a substantial com pliance only is required ; Royal Ins. Co. v. Brown, 36 S. W. 591. Keeping the books in the safe at night, does not mean from sun rise to sunset, but from the close of business of the day according to custom ; Jones v. Ins. Co., 38 Fed. 19 ; and where according to custom the door was locked but customers could get in by knocking, and the clerk who was in the store writing up books was ab sent for a short time when the fire occurred, the store was "opened for business" and the policy was not void ; Sun Ins. Co. v. Jones, 54 Ark. 376, 15 S. W. 1034. But where the insurance was on a stock of liquor in a sa loon, it did not excuse the violation of the iron safe clause that the same books were kept for a hotel and the saloon, the latter being opened night and day except Sunday, and the books being needed for constant set tlements with the guests in the hotel ; South ern Ins. Co. v. Parker, 61 Ark. 207, 32 S. W. 507 (distinguishing the last two cases). The clause was held not to have been violated by failure to keep a blotter, containing the rec ord of the sales of the day before, locked in the safe ; Brown v. Ins. Co., 69 Tex. 590, 35 S. W. 1060 (reversing Palatine Ins. Co. v. Brown, 34 S. W. 462) ; where a cash sales book covering twenty-one days before the sale was inadvertently left out of the safe and burned, and the books were kept in a primitive manner but showed' purchases and credit sales, some cash sales, and an inven tory, taken shortly before the fire, it was held that a finding of compliance with the policy was warranted ; Western Assur. Co. v. Redding, 68 Fed. 708, 15 C. C. A. 619 ; in an other case it was said not to be an excuse for violation that through oversight the books were not put in the safe the night before the fire ; Goldman v. Ins. Co., 48 La. Ann. 223, 19 South. 132.
Where the bookkeeper, fearing the safe would not stand, took out the books to re move them to a safe place, and some of them fell and were burned, it was held that the covenant was not broken unless he was neg ligent ; East Texas Fire Ins. Co. v.. Harris, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 647, 25 S. W. 720.
Where the application showed in answer to inquiry that the books were kept in a dwelling at night a breach of the condition was not enforced; Sprott v. Ins. Ass'n, 53 Ark. 215, 13 S. W. 799.