suns v. nom: Mor. ms. oo. 17
first visit, and it was explicit and satisfactory. The plaintiff swore
that he had no interest in the property, and the Lurch Bros. claimed
to own it, which claim was supported by the county record of deeds.
So it is quite plain that this suit is barred by lapse of time. It was
commenced just six days too late. But if this were otherwise, the
plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought. I have examined the cir-
cumstances of the case as disclosed by the evidence, and they do not
lead to the conclusion that there was any mistake made in the word-
ing of this policy as alleged, but the contrary.
Briefly, it appears that in 1878 the Lurch Bros. were doing busi-
ness at Cottage Grove as commission merchants when they failed,
claiming to owe the plaintiff, who is a person of comparative wealth,
living in the same place, nearly $5,000, with interest at 1 per centum
per month, for which he obtained or had a judgment against them
on December 9, 1878. _ Upon this he sold and purchased their store,
but retainedthem as clerks and managers of the business for a year
or two, when they succeeded in making a settlement with their cred-
itors, and took the store back again, still owing him, as they allege,
about $2,000, which was the value of the stock when returned to them.
Aaron Lurch says that after the failure he told the plaintiff that, as
he was a creditor of theirs, he would have this property insured for
his benefit, without stating how or in what manner he expected to
accomplish it, and the plaintiff says he assented to the suggestion,
but it does not appear that he ever gave the matter any further atten-
tion, or that the Lurches were under any legal obligation to him to
do so. On July 26, 1879, Aaron Lurch had the property insured in
the Connecticut Fire Insurance Company, for one year from that date,
for the sum of $900, as the property of the plaintiff, the application
therefor, which was made by him in person, being in his handwriting,
and signed by him, "A. H. Spare." In 1880, and before July 24th, ·
the Lurch Bros. became the agents of the defendant at Cottage Grove ‘
to solicit and receive applications for nre insurance, and on that day
they, as such agents, wrote to the manager of the defendant, at Port-
land, inclosing the said Connecticut policy on this property, as the
property of the plaintiff, and asked to have it renewed in the Home
Mutual; and that they might be allowed the proper commission
therefor, which was done; and on July 14, 1881, on their written
application, the policy was renewed with the defendant for another
year. This was all the communication there ever was, until after
the fire, between the defendant and any of these parties on this sub-
ject; and all the knowledge which the defendant or its manager or
agents had, as to the ownership of this property, prior to the loss,
was derived from, and in accordance with, the information thus
obtained.
Upon this state of facts it is preposterous to claim that the plain-
tiff or his agents, the Lurches, ever intended or thought of insuring
v.19,no.1—2