"fire-proof safe" in such a clause does not mean a safe certainly proof against fire.

Sneed v. British-American Ine. Co., 73 Miss. 279, 18 So. Rep. 928; Knoxville Ins. Co. v. Hird, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 182, 23 S. W. Rep. 693, 23 Ins. L. J. 16; Liverpool, L. & G. Ins. Co. v. Kearney, 180 U. S. 132, affg. 94 Fed. Rep. 314, 36 C. C. A. 265.

RULE 18.

Meaning of Fire-proof Safe.

A fire-proof safe does not mean one that is absolutely sufficient against every fire that might occur; it is sufficient if the safe was such as was commonly used and such as, in the judgment of prudent men in the locality of the property insured, was sufficient.

Liverpool, L. & G. Ins. Co. v. Kearney, 180 U. S. 132, affg. 94 Fed. Rep. 314, 36 C. C. A. 265; Fire Assoc. v. Short, 100 Ill. App. 553, 559; Underwriters' Assoc. v. Palmer (Tex. Civ. App.), 74 S. W. Rep. 603. And see Rule 17.

RULE 19.

Violation of Clause Affects Stock Only.

A violation of this clause affects stock of goods only; it does not affect the insurance on other items, as building, furniture, or fixtures, etc.

Hanover Ins. Co. v. Crawford, 121 Ala. 258, 25 So. Rep. 512, 28 Ins. L. J. 945; Mitchell v. Mississippi Home Ins. Co., 72 Miss. 53, 18 So. Rep. 86; Roberts v. Sun Mutual Ins. Co., 13 Tex. Civ. App. 64, 35 S. W. Rep. 955; writ of error denied, 37 S. W. Rep. 311; Sun Ins. Co. v. Tufts, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 147, 50 S. W. Rep. 180; Landman v. Hartford Ins. Co. (La.), 19 Ins. L. J. 572; Continental Ins. Co. v. Cummings,

81 S. W. Rep. 705; Miller v. Delaware Ins. Co.,

Tex.

Okla.

75 Pac. Rep. 1121, 65 L. R. A. 172. And see this volume,

"Construction," Rule 26 and note.

TITLE VII.

Fraud or False Swearing.

RULE 1. Effect of fraud or false swearing as imposed by con

tract.

2. Must be fraudulent intent.

3. What fraud or false swearing means.

4. Mistake or reliance on information.

5. Effect of intentional attempt to defraud.

6. Effect not obviated by amount of loss.

7. Not necessary to establish beyond reasonable doubt May be inferred.

8. When proved by circumstantial evidence.

9. Statement must be material- Slight exaggerations. 10. Alterations and erasures in books.

11. Fraud by agent of insured.

12. Effect of difference in amount sworn to in proofs and on trial.

13. Actual extent of loss relevant on question of intent. 14. Raising amounts in invoices False statements as to

property or interest.

15. What is not fraud or false swearing.

16. Claiming money payable to third party Statements as to title.

17. Not fraud to pay premium after loss.

18. Question of fact for jury.

19. Waiver of forfeiture.

20. Fraud voids entire contract.

21. Intentional fire caused by insured.

22. Effect of statute fixing amount of loss.

23. Fraud to apply for insurance on destroyed property Not when prior sufficient oral contract.

RULE 1.

Effect of Fraud or False Swearing as Imposed by Contract. The policy becomes void in case of any fraud or false swearing by the insured touching any matter re

lating to the insurance, or the subject thereof, whether before or after a loss.

This rule is imposed by above terms in the standard form of policy prescribed in:

provides that the policy shall be void "if the insured shall make any attempt to defraud the company, either before or after the loss."

The South Dakota form provides that "this policy shall be void if the amount of loss shall be fraudulently concealed or misrepresented by the insured."

In the States where no standard form is prescribed and other than those above named, the New York standard form is in general use.

RULE 2.

Must be Fraudulent Intent.

Mere falsity of a sworn statement is not sufficient to void the policy, if not made with intent to defraud; the false swearing which voids the insurance must be done willfully and knowingly and with intent to defraud the company;' but knowledge and intent may be inferred from the circumstances,2 and assured cannot escape the consequences of fraud by adopting and swearing to a detailed fraudulent statement without examination.3

1. Runkle v. Hartford Ins. Co., 99 Iowa, 414, 68 N. W. Kep. 712, 26 Ins. L. J. 320; Beyer v. St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co., 112

* See note to "Duty to Save and Preserve Property," Rule 1, page 2.

Wis. 138, 88 N. W. Rep. 57; Hilton v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 92 Me. 272, 42 Atl. Rep. 412; American Central Ins. Co. v. Ware, 65 Ark. 336, 46 S. W. Rep. 129, 27 Ins. L. J. 785; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Swann (Tex.), 41 S. W. Rep. 519; West Coast Lumber Co. v. State Investment Co., 98 Cal. 502, 33 Pac. Rep. 258, 22 Ins. L. J. 681; Tubb v. Liverpool, L. & G. Ins. Co., 106 Ala. 651, 17 So. Rep. 615, 25 Ins. L. J. 365; Dunn v. Springfield F. & M. Ins. Co., 109 La. 520, 33 So. Rep. 585; Morotock Ins. Co. v. Fostoria Novelty Co., 94 Va. 361, 26 S. E. Rep. 850; Insurance Co. v. Scales, 101 Tenn. 628, 49 S. W. Rep. 743; Schuster v. Dutchess County Ins. Co., 102 N. Y. 260; Titus v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 81 N. Y. 410; Franklin Ins. Co. v. Updegraff, 43 Pa. St. 350; Marion v. Great Republic Ins. Co., 35 Mo. 148; Stache v. St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co., 49 Wis. 89; Hornthal v. Western Ins. Co., 88 N. C. 71; Daul v. Firemen's Ins. Co., 35 La. Ann. 98; Tiefenthal v. Citizens' Ins. Co., 53 Mich. 306; Watertown Ins. Co. v. Graham, 74 Ga. 642; Little v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 123 Mass. 380; Carson v. Jersey City Ins. Co., 43 N. J. L. 300; Insurance Co. v. Weides, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 375; Home Ins. Co. v. Mendenhall, 164 Ill. 458; Knop v. National Ins. Co., 107 Mich. 323; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Summerfield, 70 Miss. 827, 13 So. Rep. 253; Walker v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 62 Mo. App. 209; Garner v. Mutual Ins. Co., Iowa,

86 N. W. Rep. 289; Rohrbach v. Etna Ins. Co., 62 N. Y. 613; Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Gargett, 42 Mich. 289; Cheever v. Scottish Union Ins. Co., 86 App. Div. 328, 83 N. Y. Supp. 730; Dalton v. Milwaukee Mechanics' Ins. Co., 102 N. W. Rep. 120; Medley v. German Alliance Ins. Co., 55 W. Va. 342, 47 S. E. Rep. 101; Newton v. Theresa Ins. Co.,

Iowa,

Wis. "

104 N. W. Rep. 107; Nugent v. Rensselaer Ins. Co., App. Div. 94 N. Y. Supp. 605.

2. Virginia Ins. Co. v. Vaughan, 88 Va. 832, 14 S. E. Rep. 754; Claflin v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 110 U. S. 95; Sternfield v. Park Ins. Co., 50 Hun, 262.

3. Mullin v. Mutual Ins. Co., 58 Vt. 113, 54 Vt. 223. And see Knop v. National Ins. Co., 127 Mich. 323. See also Rule 3.

RULE 3.

What Fraud or False Swearing Means.

Fraud or false swearing implies something more than mistake of fact or honest misstatements on part of assured. They may consist in knowingly and intentionally stating upon oath what is not true, or a statement of a fact as true which the party does not know

to be true, and which he has no reasonable ground of believing to be true.

Atherton v. British-American Assur. Co., 91 Me. 289, 39 Atl. Rep. 1006. And see Leach v. Republic Ins. Co., 58 N. H. 245; Sleeper v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 56 N. H. 401; Petty v. Mutual Ins. Co., 111 Iowa, 358, 82 N. W. Rep. 767; Hanscom v. Home Ins. Co., 90 Me. 333, 38 Atl. Rep. 324, 27 Ins. L. J. 19, and cases cited under Rule 2.

RULE 4.

Mistake or Reliance on Information.

It is not enough that the false swearing occurs through mistake, carelessness, or inadvertence, or even in unreasonable reliance upon information derived from others.

Beyer v. St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co., 112 Wis. 138, 98 N. W. Rep. 57.

RULE 5.

Effect of Intentional Attempt to Defraud.

A deliberate intentional and fraudulent attempt to impose a loss not sustained upon the insurance company defeats recovery.

Schmidt v. Philadelphia Underwriters, 109 La. 884, 33 So. Rep. 907; Bannon v. Ins. Co. of N. A., 115 Wis. 250, 91 N. W. Rep. 666; Hall v. Western Underwriters' Assoc., 106 Mo. App. 476, 81 S. W. Rep. 227; Rovinsky v. Northern Assur. Co., Me. 60 Atl. Rep. 1025.

RULE 6.

Effect not Obviated by Amount of Loss.

The effect of false swearing is not obviated or removed by the fact that the actual loss truly stated equals or exceeds the amount of insurance;1 but when the insurance company has paid the loss, and seeks to recover money back on ground of false swearing as to value, then if the actual loss equals or exceeds the