Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/557

 Massachusetts, Brown v. Peoples’ Mut. Ins. Co. 11 Cush. (65 Mass.) 280; Hayward v. New England Mutual Fire Ins. Co. 10 Cush. (64 Mass.) 444; Kibbe v. Hamilton Mut. Ins. Co. 11 Gray (77 Mass.) 163; Bowditch Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Winslow, 8 Gray (74) (Mass.) 38, s. ¢. 3 Gray (69 Mass.) 415; Falls v. Conway Ins. Co. 7, 7 Allen (89 Mass.) 46; Minnesota, Cerys v. State Ins. Co. 71 Minn. 338, 73 N. W. &49, 27 Ins. L. J. 258; New Hampshire, Marshall v. Columbian Mut. Fire Ins. Co. 7 Fost. (27 N. H.) 157; New York, Smith v. Cane Ins. Co. 118 N. Y. 522, 23 N. E. 883.

T. F. Murtha, for respondent.

Courts quite uniformly hold that under provisions similar to the one under consideration, the giving of a mortgage does not void the policy. 19 Cyc. 742; 19 Cyc. 745; 19 Cyc. 746-D; Wolf v. Ins. Co. (Wis.) 91 N. W. 1014 6 Syl.; Peak v. Ins. Co. (Utah) 51 p. 255; Koshland v. Ins. Co. (Or.) 49 p. 866.

The deeds being in fact mortgaged did not avoid the policy, 19 Cyc. 746-D; Barry v. Ins. Co. (N. Y.) 17 N. E. 405; Ins. Co. v. Gibe, (IIl.) 44 N. E. 490; Ins. Co. v. Fox, (Neb.) 96 N. W. 652; Henton v. Ins. Co. (Neb.) 95 N. W. 670; Bank v. Ins. Co. (Kan.) 49 p. 329; Bldg. & L. Asso. v. Ins. Co. (Kan.) 86 p. 142; Slobodisky v. Ins. Co. (Neb.) 72 N. W. 483; Wolf v, Ins. Co., (Wis.) 91 N. W. 1014; Myles v. Ins. Co. (Wash.) 193 p. 703; Bowling v. Ins. Co. (W. Va.) 103 S. E. 285; Ins. Co. v. Shepard (Ind.) 126 N. E. 447; Lavenstein v. Ins. Co. (Va.) Iol S. E. 331; 99 S. E. 570. The false swearing, if there was such, to avoid the policy, must be willful, and upon a material matter. 19 Cyc. 855-6; 19 Cyc. 950, note 42; Alfred Hiller Co. v. Ins. Co. (La.) 32 L. N. S. 453, annotated.

Our Court has said in no uncertain terms that the Insurance Company cannot hold on to the premiums and avoid liability. Yusko v. Ins. Co. 39 N. D. 66; 166 N. W. 539; Horswill v. Ins. Co. 178 N. W. 798; L. R. A. 1917 D. 1091, 4 Syl.; L. R. A. 1917 F. 663; See 6530 to 6544, C. L. N. D. 1913.

, J. This is an action upon a policy of fire insurance. By consent a jury was waived and the cause submitted to the trial judge. The defendant has appealed from a judgment entered upon findings favorable to the plaintiff. In February, 1916, defendant issued to the plaintiff its insurance policy upon his dwelling and household furniture,