The policy of fire insurance upon which the present action was brought was issued April 17, 1907. The case was submitted to the trial court upon an agreed statement of facts, from which it appears, among other things, that the policy contained this clause:

It was further stipulated:

By the record the sole question presented is whether the fact that there was no watchman on duty at the time of the fire on Sunday morning, October 13th, avoided the policy.

We are clearly of the opinion that it did not.' It is not doubted that a breach of the warranty would have avoided the policy, but we do not think it can be fairly said by any one that a lumber mill and its incidental lighting plant which continued to be run, up to the time of their destruction by fire, in the same way they were being run at the time they were insured, that is to say, the mill during the six working days of each week, and the electric plant every night, and concerning both of which it was the intention of the owner to continue their operation in the future as they had been operated in the past, were “idle or inoperative” when destroyed; in other words, that they were in a state of disuse. We do not think those words can be fairly construed to mean the customary suspension of the work of the mill on Sundays, or the nonuse of the electric plant in the daytime.

The contention of the plaintiff in error is thus stated by its counsel in their brief:

That such is not the true construction of the clause in question is, we think, further shown by the clause immediately following it, to wit;

There is nothing to indicate that the word “idle” was used in different senses in the two clauses. On the contrary, it seems to us manifest that it was used in the same sense in each clause; that is to say, to indicate a state of disuse, a shutting down or suspension of the works.

These views find support in the cases of Mackintosh v. Agricultural Fire Insurance Company, 150 Cal. 440 , 89 Pac. 102 , 119 Am. St. Rep. 234 ; Mackintosh v. American Fire Ins. Co., 150 Cal. 453 , 89 Pac. 107 ; Central Montana Mines Company v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, 92 Minn. 223 , 99 N. W. 1020 , 100 N. W. 3 ; Poss v. Western Assurance Co., 7 Lea (Tenn.) 704, 40 Am. Rep. 68 ; Waukau Mill *163 ing Co. v. Citizens’ Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 130 Wis. 47 , 109 N. W. 937 , 118 Am. St. Rep. 998 ; Rosencrans v. Insurance Co., 66 Mo. App. 352 ; City Planing & Shingle Mill Co. v. Insurance Co., 72 Mich. 654 , 40 N. W. 777 , 16 Am. St. Rep. 552 ; Brehm Cumber Co. v. Svea Ins. Co., 36 Wash. 520 , 79 Pac. 34 , 68 L. R. A. 109, cited in the opinion of the court below.

Having given careful consideration to the elaborate brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, we see no good reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial court.

The judgment is affirmed.