The facts agreed bring this case within the decision of this Court in Thompson v. Accident Association, 209 N. C., 678, 184 S. E., 695, and Hines v. Casualty Co., 172 N. C., 225, 90 S. E., 131. In the Thompson case, supra, it was said, Schenck, J., speaking for the Court: “The purpose of the provision relative to the insured’s being continuously confined within doors was to describe the character and extent of his illness, rather than to prescribe a limitation upon his conduct.”

Upon the authority of these cases the judgment is

Affirmed.