Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/769

 PUTNAM V. COMMONWBALXH INS. 00. T55 �"$12,000." It must be established, not only that the goods were worth less than the plaintiff set forth, but that the plain- tiff made a fraudulent valuation of them. The evidence is not BufiScient to establish either of these facts. �3. The defendant, in the first case, contends that its policy was void when issued. It containa. a printed provision that "if the assured shall have, or shall hereafter make, any other insurance on the property hereby insured, or any part thereof, ■without the consent of the eompany written hereon, • • * this policy shall be void." The policy contains this clause in writing: "$3,000 other concurrent insurance permitted." When the policy was issued there was $6,000 other insurance on the property, which continued in force until the fire. The application for the policy in suit was made to an agent of the Company in Utica, N. Y., the eompany being established in Boston, Mass. The policy was signed by the officers in Bos- ton, and was countersigned by the agent in Utica, and was delivered in Utica by him to the agent of the assured. �The policy contains this attestation clause: "In witness whereof, the Commonwealth Insurance Company bave caused these presents to be signed by their president, and attested by their secretary, in the city of Boston. But this policy shall not be valid unless countersigned by the duly authorized agent of said Commonwealth Insurance Company." Below that are these words: "Countersigned at Utica, this sixteenth day of October, 1877. J. Carr & Son, agents." The policy contains this provision: "11. It is a part of this contract that any person other than the assured, who may bave pro- cured this insurance to be taken by this eompany, shall be deemed to be the agent of the assured named in this policy and not of this eompany, under any circumstances whatever, or in any transaction relating to this insurance." The plain- tifî claims that the evidence shows that the policy was is- sued and delivered by J. Carr & Son, with full knowledge that there was already $6,000 other insurance on the goods; that the issuing and delivery of the policy with suoh knowl- edge was ■ a waiver of any prohibition against more than §3,000 other insurance; and that J. Carr & Son had author- ����