Webster et al. v. Dwelling House Insurance Co. company retained, yet that there never was any valid contract, and the insured, although acting in entire good faith, never had a dollar of insurance on their property. Perhaps, technically speaking, the claim is not one of forfeiture, for forfeiture is a deprivation or destruction of a right in consequence of the non-performance of some obligation or condition, and we are not accustomed to associate the idea of forfeiture with a contract which has not existed; but manifestly the law as to forfeiture will furnish a guide to the proper disposition of the question. Relief against forfeitures is matter of equitable cognizance, but rules applicable to the subject are resorted to in courts of law, and there seems no good reason why the principles which govern courts of equity should not be available in a suit at law where the facts make such cognizance necessary to the ends of justice. A primal rule is that forfeitures are not favored either in equity or at law; indeed, it is declared as a universal rule that courts of equity will not lend their aid to enforce a forfeiture. Following as a corollary from this, provisions for forfeitures are to receive, when the intent is doubtful, a strict construction against those for whose benefit they are introduced. West v. Ins. Co., 27 Ohio St., 1; Manhattan Ins. Co. v. Smith, 44 Ohio St., 156; Blackwell v. Ins. Co., 48 Ohio St., 533; Livingston v. Sickles, 7 Hill, 255; Catlin v. Springfield Ins. Co., 1 Sumn., 434; Breasted v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 4 Seld., 305. As said by Sherman, J., in Bond v. Swearinger, 1 Ohio, 403, respecting a statutory forfeiture: "Whatever may be the nature or kind of forfeiture, it is never carried by construction beyond the clear expression of the Webster et al. v. Dwelling House Insurance Co. statute creating it." And by Porter. J., in Hoffman v. Etna Ins. Co., 32 N. Y., 413: "It is a rule of law, as well as of ethics, that when the language of a promisor may be understood in more senses than one, it is to be interpreted in the sense in which he had reason to suppose it was understood by the promisee. Potter v. Ins. Co., 5 Hill, 149; Barlow v. Scott, 24 N. Y., 40. It is also a familiar rule of law, that if it be left in doubt, in view of the general tenor of the instrument and the relation of the contracting parties, whether given words were used in an enlarged or a restricted sense, other things being equal, that construction should be adopted which is most beneficial to the promisee. Coke's Litt., 183; Bacon's Law Maxims, Reg., 3; Doe v. Dixon, 9 East, 16; Marvin v. Stone, 2 Cowen, 806. This rule has been very uniformly applied to conditions and provisions in policies of insurance, on the ground that though they are inserted for the benefit of the underwriters, their office is to limit the force of the principal obligation. Yeaton v. Fry, 5 Cranch, 341; Palmer v. Ins. Co., 1 Storey's R., 364-5; Petty v. Ins. Co., 1 Burrows, 349." See also Pipe Line v. Ins. Co., 145 Pa. St., 346; Chandler v. Ins. Co., 21 Minn., 85; Anderson v. Fitzgerald, 4 H. of L. Cas., 484; Riddlesbarger v. Ins. Co., 7 Wall, 386; Baley v. Ins. Co., 80 N. Y., 21; Burleigh v. Ins. Co., 90 N. Y., 221; Griffey v. Ins. Co., 100 N. Y., 417. Applying the foregoing rules, how stands the case? This defense is based entirely on the language of the representation. In giving construction to this representation, what meaning should be placed on the words used? Manifestly such as was intended by the applicants, and which the company Webster et al. v. Dwelling House Insurance Co. knew, or ought to have known, they intended. Should the word "jointly" receive construction in accordance with strict legal ideas? If so, does it mean that the plaintiffs were joint tenants as defined by Blackstone, giving right of survivorship? An Ohio lawyer, even, would hardly have that in mind, for joint tenancy does not exist in Ohio. Should the word be held to imply tenancy in common, where two or more hold by an undivided possession but several freeholds, neither being entitled to an exclusive part, but each entitled to occupy the whole in common with the others, and at the death of one his interest to pass to his heirs and not to the survivors? Plaintiffs claim that they did in fact state to the agent who filled up the application the exact condition of the title, and it was not their fault if he did not so write it. But, be this as it may, and even though the word would suggest tenancy in common to the legal mind, these plaintiffs were not lawyers; the property was in the country, and they were, without doubt, plain country folk. Who would suspect them of intending to be understood that their ownership was that of joint tenants, or of tenants in common, within legal definitions? Rather is it natural to presume that they used the word in the popular sense, implying that they owned the property together, and that no other person was interested in it. And they did. They were in the joint possession of the real estate, and were enjoying the use use of the personalty together, and no third person was the owner, in any sense, of any part of it. While the title to the real estate was in the wife, and while the husband had no estate in it, yet he had, by force of recent statutes, an inchoate dower right in it, liable to become vested in case she should die seized of it Webster et al. v. Dwelling House Insurance Co. leaving him her widower, a substantial property right, capable of valuation in a proper proceeding, and, under section 3111, Revised Statutes, he could not, even during her life, their marital relations remaining, be excluded from her dwelling. Nor was the alleged failure to state the exact ownership prejudicial to the company. The purpose of statement of ownership is to prevent the making of wagering contracts, or such as would afford a temptation to the insured to purposely or negligently permit the property to burn; and this purpose would seem to be fully accomplished when it appears that the wife and husband own all the property covered by the policy, and are in possession and use of it in common, although there be a small portion of which the wife has not legal ownership, for usually there is no more vigilant guardian of the husband's interests than is the wife. The property is used by both, for their common comfort and welfare, and that of the family. In the husband's absence the wife has, ordinarily, the entire charge of it, and her interest in its preservation is scarcely second to his. If the company may stand on a strict technical construction of the words used, and hold the plaintiffs to them though they did not fully apprehend their legal effect, and ought not reasonably to have done so, it is placed in the position of tempting patrons into the payment of premiums, and into resting on a mistaken belief that they have indemnity, only to find, when the trial comes, that their reliance had been upon a broken reed. A court cannot sustain such a contention. If technical forfeitures are to be maintained on such grounds, confidence in commercial faith will be weakened and important property rights impaired. It would Webster et al. v. Dwelling House Insurance Co. be, as it seems to us, carrying technicality to a most unreasonable length, to hold that the representation as to ownership shall forfeit the policy. Whether a joint action could have been maintained for the personal property we need not determine for no proof of loss of personal property, or its value having been offered, that claim dropped out. It was held in Dwelling House Ins. Co. v. Leedy et al., decided at January term, 1894, though not reported, that the interest of the husband in the wife's dwelling house used as a homestead by the family, is sufficient to support a recovery by the two jointly on a policy issued to both, and we but follow that case in holding that the action was properly brought in the name of both in this case. The instruction was properly refused, 2. Defendant also requested the court to charge that "If the 'plaintiff, after the issuing of the policy sued upon and before the loss, placed a mortgage lien upon the real estate upon which the house burned was situated, without notice to the company, or its consent to such incumbrance, such action on the part of the plaintiff was in violation of the terms of the policy and rendered the policy void, and the plaintiffs, if the jury find the facts as above stated, cannot recover in this action." This the court refused to give, and charged in substance that the creating of a mortgage incumbrance after the issuing of the policy and before the fire, without notice or consent by the company, would not of itself constitute a defense, but that it would constitute a defense if the jury should find that the giving of such mortgage materially increased the risk. This holding rests upon the proposition that the facts bring the case within the |