BHAW V. SCOTTISH COM. INS. 00. 761 �Giil and PoUock, in respect to the assignment to the latter, contemplated that it should be a separate written transfer, and that the securities themseives should be retained by Gill ; and this arrangement was earried out. Thus was Gill allowed by Pollock to remain the apparent owner of the entire secu- rities. It seems to me, therefore, that the case falls clearly within the principle that when one of two innocent persons must suffer, he must bear the burden or loaa whose act or neglect bas been the occasion of the suffering. Wetherill'e Appeal, supra; Jeffers \. Gill, for me, supra; Penn.B. Co.'sAp- peal, 5 Norris, 80. �Let a decree be drawn in favor of William C. King, in the issue between him and Matthew M. Pollock, and direeting that W. D. Porter, the assignee in bankruptcy of S. W. B. Gill, deliver to said William C. King the said bond and mortgage, and duly assign to him of record, the said mortgage. ���Shaw and others v. The Scottish CommeroiaIi In8tjuanob �Company. �(Circuit Court, D. Maine. , 1880.) �iKsnKAKCE— Palse Statembnt— Fradd.— a mere wilfuUy false stateinent will not -work a forfeiture of a policy of insurance, under a condition that " ail fraud or atterapt at fraud, by false swearing or otherwise," should cause such forfeiture, when such false stateinent could not de- ceive the insurance company to itsinjury. �Thial — PuooFS OF Loss — Omission to OHAiiaB. — The omission to charge that the proofs of loss were not evidence of value, although requested by the defendant, did not constitute an error under the circumstancea of this case. �LowELL, J. One Clemont insured a stock -of goods in the defendant company for $4,500, and it was consumed by fire. The value of the whole stock had been stated to a sub- agent of the defendants, when the insurance was effected, at $8,000, but no issue was raised concerning this representa- tion. As part of the preliminary proof of loss, a sworn ��� �
