
    Patrick Harkins vs. Quincy Mutual Fire Insurance Company.
    A by-law of an insurance company, providing that in case of loss the assured shall, as soon as possible, deliver a particular account in writing, under oath, stating the value of the property lost, and of that saved, is sufficiently complied with by a claim for a total loss of the property, stating its value, if some of the property is saved without his knowledge.
    Action of contract on a policy of insurance on personal property in a building in Roxbury, made “subject to the provisions of the constitution and by-laws of the said company annexed.”
    The sixth article of those by-laws was as follows : “ In case of loss the insured shall, as soon as possible, deliver to the president or secretary a particular account in writing, under oath, stating the value of the property lost, the nature and value of his interest therein, and if a partial loss, the amount of damage done, and if personal property, the amount on hand at the time of the loss ; and in all cases the amount of insurance at other offices, the cause and origin of the fire, so far as known, and the value of such parts as remain. Until this duty has been fully done by the insured, the insurance, or any part thereof, shall not be payable.”
    At the trial in the superior court of Suffolk at May term, 1859, it appeared that immediately after the fire the plaintiff made a claim for loss, under oath, stating that the property was destroyed by fire on a given day; that the cause of the fire was unknown ; that he was the sole owner of the property; that there was no other insurance thereon; the value of the property on hand at the time of the loss, and that of the property destroyed, at the same sum. There was evidence that a part of the property insured was removed into another building and saved ; but the plaintiff testified that he did not know that any part had been removed and saved.
    The question being argued to the court, neither party asking to have it submitted to the jury, Morton, J. ruled that the claim for loss was a substantial compliance with the provisions of the sixth article of the by-laws, and sufficient in law to enable the plaintiff to maintain his action. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendants alleged exceptions.
    
      J. M. Keith, for the defendants.
    
      S. J. Thomas, for the plaintiff.
   Chapman, J.

In stating his claim for loss, the plaintiff, not knowing that any part of the property was saved, made claim for a total loss, and stated the value of the property lost, and the nature and value of his interest therein. This was all that the sixth article of the by-laws required him to do in such a case. The instruction excepted to was therefore right, and the exceptions must be overruled. Exceptions overruled.  