Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/314

 existed a fire in this mill, and the fire produced an explosion, the fire would be the proximate cause. Although the explosion thus produced may have contributed in a large degree to the destruction of the property, it would nevertheless be a loss by fire, within the meaning of the policy, and the defendant will be liable to the plaintiff for such loss. But if there was no fire, and an explosion from some other cause than fire occurred, by which the property was damaged, it would not be a loss by fire, within the terms of the policy, and the defendant would not be liable for such loss.

The plaintiff must satisfy your minds, by a preponderance, that a fire existed which produced the explosion. If he has done so he is entitled to your verdict. If he has failed to do so your verdict will be in favor of the defendant.

Verdict for the plaintiff.

, Jr., Bankrupt.

(District Court, S. D. New York. May 3, 1880.)

P. Cantine, for creditors.

C. Whitaker, for claimant.

, D. J.This is a proceeding for the re-examination of a proof of debt filed by the wife of the bankrupt for the sum of $38,672.10. In the proof of the claim it is described as “a balance due deponent for real estate, bonds, mortgages, notes and drafts conveyed, consigned, transferred and set