The CHIEF JUSTICE
delivered the opinion of the court.
That the deceased was travelling is clear enough, but was travelling on foot travelling by public or private conyeyanbe?
The contract must receive the construction which the language used fairly warrants. What was the understanding of the parties, or, rather, what understanding must naturally have been derived from the language used? It seems to us th.at walking would not naturally be presented to the mind as a means of public or private conveyance. Public conveyance naturajly suggests a vessel or vehicle employed in the general conveyance of passengers. Private conveyance suggests a vehicle belonging to a private individual. If this was the sense in which the language was understood by the parties, the deceased was not, when injured, travelling, within the terms of the policy. There is nothing to show that it was not.
Judgment aeeirmed.