
    (84 South. 790)
    No. 23110.
    MIXON et al. v. ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INS. CO. OF ST. PAUL, MINN.
    (May 3, 1920.
    Rehearing Denied May 31, 1920.)
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    1. Insurance <&wkey;!5I (!) — Rider attached to binder for purpose of specification must control.
    Where a so-called “binder” was issued to serve as a regular policy pending the issuance of the standard policy, with a “rider” containing “builders’ risks” clause affixed thereto, the “binder” and the “rider,” having been executed together, must be read together, and the rider, having been added for the purpose of specification, must control.
    2. Contracts <&wkey;l56 — Statutes ,<®=»I94 — In-, terpretation; the specific controls the general.
    In the interpretation of statutes and contracts the specific controls the general.
    3. Insurance &wkey;G63(l) — Fire policy held a builder’s risk covering only new construction.
    Where, on application of a building contractor who had contracted to restore partly destroyed building to its original condition, a “binder” was issued by insurer as a regular policy pending issuance of the standard policy required by law, with “rider” attacned containing “builders’ risks” clause describing the property insured as the building “in course of construction, including lumber, brick and building material in the building and on the premises adjacent thereto, to be used' in the construction of said building,” insurer was not liable to owner for value of such partly destroyed property on its destruction before new work, except to a nominal extent, had been put into the building; the risk covered by such policy being the builder’s risk, and not the owner’s risk. ,
    4. Evidence <§=462 — Parol evidence of circumstances admissible on issue of whether policy was regular or builder’s risk insurance.
    ' In action on fire policy consisting of “binder” issued as a regular policy and a “rider” attached thereto containing “builders’ risks” clause, involving issue of whether the policy was a regular policy or merely covering the builder’s risk, parol evidence as to the circumstances under which the policy was executed was admissible on such issue, in view of ambiguity of contract.
    5. Evidence <&wkey;462 — Testimony by applicant as . to character of policy sought admissible to remove ambiguity.
    In action on fire policy consisting of a “binder” issued as a regular policy with a “rider” attached containing “builders’ risks” clause, involving the issue of whether the risk covered was a builder’s risk or an owner’s risk, the contractor’s testimony as to the kind of policy he had applied for was admissible, in view of ambiguity as to whether the policy was a regular policy or a builder’s risk policy.
    6. Evidence <@=448 — Circumstances may be shown to remove ambiguity.
    The circumstances attending the execution of contract may always be shomi for removing an ambiguity.
    7. Evidence <@=457 — Testimony of contractors as to meaning of “builders’ risks” provision of fire policy held admissible.
    In action on fire policy involving construction of “builders’ risks” provision of “rider” attached to “binder” issued as a regular policy, testimony of contractors in the habit of taking out such policies, including the contractor who applied for policy being sued on, as to meaning of such provision, held admissible.
    Appeal from Twenty-Fifth Judicial District Court, Parish of Tangipahoa; W. S. Rownd, Judge.
    Action by Mike Mixon and others against the St. Paul Fire & Marine Company of St. Paul, Minn. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.
    Judgment set aside, with directions.
    Walter Lemann, of Dónaldsónville, and Hall, Monroe & Lemann, of New Orleans, for appellant.
    John C. Hollingsworth, of New Orleans, and Purser & Magruder, of Amite, for appellees.
   PROVOSTT, J.

On the 2d of Septémber, 1916, plaintiff purchased a lot in the town of Kentwood on which stood what remained of a hotel building, the roof and a considerable other part of which had been destroyed by fire in the month of August of the preceding year, and which had since then lain open to the elements. The price was $1,500. He at once entered into a contract with a carpenter and builder to restore the building to its original condition at a cost not to exceed $4,000, including both materials and labor, the former of which he himself was to furnish. This contractor at once applied to the local agent of the defendant company for insurance, and the latter communicated with the New Orleans office to know what were the rates on “builders’ risks,” and received an answer expressing a willingness on the part of the defendant company to write a “builders’ risks” policy, but not a “regular policy” on the building until it should first have been completed and inspected. The agent then, on September 6,1916, issued a so-called', “binder” to serve as a regular policy “pending the issuance of a Louisiana standard fire policy prescribed by the law of Louisiana,” with a “rider” affixed to it, and forming part of it, headed “builders’ risks.” The “binder”  