PLAINTIFF in error here was one of the insurers of the property involved in North River Ins. Co. v. Militello,104 Colo. 28. It was stipulated that the pronouncement in that case should apply also to this; consequently the judgment below is affirmed for the reasons given in that opinion.

Mr. Justice Knous, Mr. Justice Bock and Mr. Justice Burke concur in the conclusion only, it being their view *Page 33 that the law of the case was settled by the opinion inNorth River Ins. Co. v. Militello, 100 Colo. 343,67 P.2d 625.

MR. JUSTICE FRANCIS E. BOUCK specially concurs.

delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff in error here was one of the insurers of the property involved in North River Ins. Co. v. Militello, 104 Colo. 28. It was stipulated that the pronouncement in that case should apply also to this; consequently the judgment below is affirmed for the reasons given in that opinion.

Mr. Justice Knous, Mr. Justice Bock and Mr. Justice Burke concur in the conclusion only, it being their view *33that the law of the case was settled by the opinion in North River Ins. Co. v. Militello, 100 Colo. 343, 67 P. (2d) 625.

Mb. Justice Francis E. Bouck specially concurs.

specially concurring:

In view of an express stipulation entered into by the-parties to the effect that this case shall be ruled by the decision in North River Insurance Company v. Militello, 104 Colo. 28, 88 P. (2d) 567, decided this day, I yield to the affirmance herein the same limited concurrence which appears in the North River case, to which reference is hereby made.