
    LEO W. NEWELL AND PAUL NEWELL, APPELLANTS, v. AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENT.
    Submitted July 9, 1923
    Decided October 11, 1923.
    Oil an appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed:
    “This is an appeal from a judgment entered in the Hudson Circuit in favor of the plaintiffs in an action brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant to recover the sum of $1,600 on an insurance policy issued by the defendant company to the plaintiffs on their automobile truck which was destroyed by fire. The defendant had a rule to show cause why a new trial should not he granted, reserving exceptions taken to the refusal of the court to grant a motion for a non-suit and a motion to direct a verdict for defendant. The rule to show cause was discharged.
    “The plaintiffs’ truck was insured by the defendant’s company on June 28th, 1921. On July 27th the truck was destroyed by fire. The policy had printed on it, under the caption ‘warranties,’ the following:
    “1. Assured’s occupation or business is * * *
    “2. The following is the description of the automobile:
    “The appellant’s single contention is that the answer of the assured, under 2, requiring a description of the automobile, that the model year of the automobile was 1917, whereas the undisputed fact is that it was manufactured in and was a model of 1921, was a breach of warranty as to its description, and was a misrepresentation of a material fact, thereby defeating plaintiffs’ right to any recovery.
    “In Felakos v. Aetna Insurance Co., 119 All. Rep. 277, it was held by this court that a statement m a policy of insurance on an automobile against theft that the automobile was a model of 1916, whereas it was a model of 1913, was a breach of warranty as to its description within the express terms of the policy, and was of such a material nature as to defeat a recovery on the policy. The principle enunciated in that case is controlling upon us here.
    “Judgment is reversed.”
    Por the appellants, Alexander Simpson.
    
    Por the respondent, Willimi Rude, Jr.
    
   Per. Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trenci-iard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, White, Heppenheimbr, Ackerson, Van Buskirk, JJ. 10.

For reversal — None.  