
    [No. 7,632.
    Department One.]
    JOHN BENNINGER v. THE PHŒNIX INSURANCE COMPANY.
    
      Insurance—Instructions.—Held, that the instruction stated below was -too broad, and therefore rightly refused.
    Appeal from a judgment for the defendant, and from an order denying a new trial, in the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Rolee, J.
    The instruction referred to in the opinion of the Court was as follows:
    And if you believe that from and after Reutinger commenced the business of bakery in the premises insured, all the stock used in such business from the 1st of May, 1879, to the 16th of February, 1880—the time of the fire—was purchased by Reutinger from the profit of his business, then the Court instructs you that whatever stock was on hand at the time of the said fire was the property of said Reutinger, and you will find for defendant.
    
      Henry M. Willis, for Appellant.
    
      Andrew D* Haris, for Respondent.
   The Court :

The question of the ownership by plaintiff of the property was submitted to the jury, and there was evidence to sustain the findings. The question as to the waiver by defendant of formal “ proofs ” of loss was also submitted to the jury, and there was evidence to sustain a finding of said waiver.

The instruction No. 1, asked by defendant, was too broad. Assuming the law and facts to be as therein suggested, it would not have followed that defendant would have been entitled to a verdict as to the whole demand.

Judgment and order affirmed.  