Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/200

 any proof of loss which was required by the terms of said policy; that the defendant has waived proofs of loss by refusing to pay the said loss upon other grounds, and by a failure to make objection promptly and specifically upon the ground of failure of proof; that on the 15th and 28th days of July, 1885, the said 100 acres of wheat was damaged by hail, and that the plaintiff’s loss sustained thereby is in the sum of $1,375.04; that there is due the defendant upon the promissory note described in the counter-claim the sum of $98.50; that the plaintiff made and sent by registered mail to the defendant a statement of each of said losses, on the 15th and 28th days of July, 1885, not sooner than five nor later than ten days thereafter, respectively; and that said wheat at the time of each of said losses was yet green and not ripe; that the defendant has never made any written request that the plaintiff submit the amount of the losses, or any of them, to arbitration, but that the plaintiff, on or about the 7th day of August, 1885, made to the defendant a written request that the amount of said losses be submitted to appraisers, but that said defendant neglected to submit said losses to appraisers, and did not comply with the written request of said plaintiff in that regard; that the loss herein sued upon occurred in July, 1885; that this action was not commenced against the defendant until March, 1888; that there is no notice upon the face of the policy calling the plaintiff's attention to the fact that a copy of the application is indorsed upon the back thereof, nor did plaintiff have actual notice that a copy of said application was indorsed upon the back of said policy until after this suit was brought; that immediately upon signing said application the same was delivered by the plaintiff to the said Strong, and by him forwarded to the defendant; that, at the time of the service of defendant’s answer to the plaintiff's complaint in this action, the defendant had full knowledge of all the facts constituting the grounds of forfeiture of said policy and with such knowledge, by the way of counter-claim in their said answer, defendant seeks to recover from the plaintiff the amount of the premium note given by said plaintiff as a consideration for the issuance of said policy, and ‘by so doing has waived all forfeiture of said policy."