Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/775

 6HÀ"W V. BCOTTISH OOM. INS. 00. 767 �onth plea, "it was necessary to prove that there 'was a de- signed overvaluing, with a view to obtaining a larger sum than the actual amount of the loss sustained would enable the party to recover;" and "reminded" them "that there was really no ground for supposing that the plaintifif or Beemer intended, by overvaluing the property, to obtain more than the actual amount of the loss, unless it was clear that sueh actual loss was less in amount than the £2,500 insured." He added the remark, relied on by the defendants, "that where the insured in any such case named a larger sum as his loss than it really amounted to, it might have the eflfect of leading the insurers to be less careful in inquiring into the fact than they otherwise would have been, and that a designed misstatement, with such a view, would, of course, be fraudulent." �The defendants understand the learned judge to charge, in this last sentence, that a false statement, with a view to induce the insurers to be less careful in investigating the loss, would be a fraud ; when he had just before charged that there could be no fraud unless the loss was less than the amount insured. If this were his meaning it would be impossible to reconcile the contradictions of the charge. The policy pro- vided against fraud and false swearing as two distinct things, and I understand him to say that there could be no over- charge or fraud under pleas 6 and 7, unless the loss were less than the sum insured; but that there might be false swearing under plea 8, if an intentional falsehood was sworn to with intent to prevent investigation. I do not mean to say that this is very clearly expressed, but it is the fair construction, and the only one which makes the ruling intel- ligible, or which is consistent with the pleas, which do not charge fraud excepting as thus understood. So, in Seghetti v. Queen Ins. Co. 10 Low. Can. Jur. 243, the condition was against fraud or false statement, and the pleas were — First, fraud in stating the loss at £2,129.77, whenit was only £500, (£800 having been insured;) second, a false statement by the insured. �The other case is Sleeper v. New Hampshire Ins. Co. 36 N. ��� �