
    Masino, Appellant, v. Farmers & Mechanics Mutual Insurance Assn.
    
      Insurance — Fire Insurance — Notice of loss.
    
    Where a policy of fire insurance in a mutual company provides that in case of a loss by fire the insured shall give notice in writing within thirty days to the president or secretary of the company, who shall immediately appoint a committee from the board of managers to examine and assess the damages sustained, and it appears that such notice was not given after a fire, the insured cannot recover for the loss sustained by him, unless he proves a waiver of notice by the insurance company.
    Argued Feb. 5, 1912.
    Appeal, No. 93, Jan. T., 1911, by plaintiffs from order of C. P. Bucks Co., Nov. T., 1909, No. 6, refusing to take off non-suit in case of Anthony Masino et al. v. Farmers’ & Mechanics’ Mut. Ins. Assn, of Bucks County.
    Before Brown, Mestrezat, Elkin and Moschzisker, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Assumpsit upon a policy of fire insurance. Before Stout, P. J.
    At the trial the court entered a compulsory non-suit which it subsequently refused to take off.
    
      Error assigned, was refusal to take off non-suit
    
      John L. Dubois, for appellant.
    
      Hugh B. Eastburn, for appellee.
    March 18, 1912:
   Per Curiam,

The by-laws of the appellee were printed on and formed part of its policy of insurance held by the appellants. Article 19 provides: “In case of a loss or damage by fire to any property insured by this association, notice shall be given in writing, within thirty days to the president or secretary, who shall immediately appoint a committee from the board of managers, which committee shall examine and assess the whole amount of damage sustained, and report the same to the board of managers within two weeks from the time of receiving information of their appointment.” The notice required by this by-law was not given to the insurance company after the property of the appellants was burned, and, with no proof of waiver of it by the appellee, the court below properly held that the appellants had no right of action.

Judgment affirmed.  