220   RIGHTS AND POWERS OF INSURER

What is the extent of the company's liability on the policy, the insured having committed suicide within two years from date of issue? Plaintiff contends the provision for limited liability in case of suicide renders the policy ambiguous, and it must be interpreted most favorably to the insured. The policy provided for payment of $3,000 immediately on receipt of proof of death of the insured. Sup-pose that, under the heading "General Provisions," the policy provided the company would pay double the face amount if death resulted from accident occurring within two years from date of issue. Nobody would say such a provision rendered the policy ambiguous with respect to extent of liability, if the contingency occurred, and if in an action to recover on the policy the company should deny double liability on the ground the insured did not die as a result of accident, it could not be urged successfully that the company was contesting the policy. The policy provided that any unpaid balance of the current year's premium would be deducted in any settlement of the policy as a death claim. It is not likely any candid person would contend the provision rendered the policy ambiguous with respect to extent of liability if the assured died owing premium for the current year. The policy further provided that if death occur-red as the result of suicide within two years the liability of the company should be limited to amount of premium paid. The policy did not end with the provision for payment of $3,000 on receipt of proof of death. That provision was merely the beginning of the contract. Numerous subjects were to be treated, and various contingencies were to be provided for. The whole contract could not be stated intelligibly without breaking it up into paragraphs, each of which related to a specific subject, and the engagements contained in paragraphs succeeding the first one, or the first two or three, are just as binding as if the order were reversed. To ascertain its meaning the policy must be read through, and each pro-vision must be accorded its reasonable, natural and probable meaning when considered in relation to others pertaining to the same subject, and in relation to the instrument as a whole. The purpose of doing this is not to discover some "curious hidden sense which nothing but a hard case and the ingenuity of a trained and acute mind" might suggest * * * or to find some technical basis for sticking in ambiguity when unforced harmonizing will make each stipulation prevail. The purpose is simply to apprehend true meaning. Considering the policy sued on according to this method, it is free from ambiguity, and liability of the company to pay $3,000 on proof of death, created by the first provision, was qualified by other provisions operating under stated conditions. Among those pro-visions was the one relating to suicide.

Plaintiff contends, however, the incontestable provision of the policy was designed to guarantee payment of benefit free from dis-