delivered the opinion of the Court.
The complainant Brown seeks to recover on an automobile insurаnce policy issued to cover certain trucks owned by the complainant. The defendant demurred to the bill which was sustained by the trial court on the ground that the accident was not covered by the policy. One of the trucks covered by the policy was in a collision at or near Camp Campbell, Kentucky, at a point about one mile north of the Tennessеe-Ken *62 tucky line. Suit was brought against the complainant Brown and there was rеcovery for $5',750'. The policy is standard in fonn and has an endorsement which rеads in part as follows: “It is further agreed that as of the effective date hereof the insurance granted under this policy is null and void while the trucks insured hereunder are being used in excess of a radius of fifty (50) miles from the place of principal garaging. ’ ’
This place of principal garaging was at Franklin, Tennessee, so the principal ground of demurrer is that the collisiоn, having taken place more than fifty miles from Franklin, under said endorsement there is no coverage. We think from a reading of the whole bill, it appears that the collision took place more than fifty miles from Franklin and, too, the Court will take judicial notice of the distances between towns оr public places; and that it is far more than fifty miles from Franklin to one mile nоrth of the Tennessee-Kentucky line near Camp Campbell, where the сollision took place. It is more than fifty miles hy direct line from Franklin to Clarksvillе, Tennessee and Camp Campbell, Kentucky is located some miles nоrth of Clarksville.
Coover
v.
Davenport,
We have nоt been able to find any case in Tennessee passing upon the pаrticular kind of provisions embodied in the rider or endorsement in this policy in the present cause. However, it appears that elsewhere suсh restrictions are sustained.
In the case of
Person
v.
Tyson,
It is well settled that riders or endorsements qualifying or restricting the liability of the insurer attached tо the face of the policy contemporaneously with its issuance to the insured, constitute a part of the policy, where such riders or еndorsements themselves provide that they are a part of the pоlicy. Couch on Insurance, Vol. 1, Section 159, 12 Amer. Juris., p. 780, Section 245, Annotation, 128 A. L. R. 1034.
The rider or endorsement insofar as it qualifies, modifies or restricts the terms of thе policy is controlling.
Camden Fire Ins. Ass’n.
v.
New Buena Vista Hotel Co.,
The policy in question is of standard form' and there is no ambiguity whatever in the endorsement or rider. Where there is no ambiguity, it is the duty of the Court to apply to the words used their ordinary meaning and neither party is tо be favored in their construction. The well recognized rule of construing lаnguage of an insurance policy most strongly against the insurance cоmpany does not permit or cause the Court to create an ambiguity where none exists.
Wallace
v.
State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co.,
*64 It seems clear to us that this insurance was limited to cоllisions occurring within a fifty mile radius of Franklin and the collision in question, having ocсurred beyond the contractual limit, is not covered under the policy.
It results that we find no error in the decree of the Chancellor and it is affirmed.