852 FEDESAL BEFORTSB. �insurance is "on stock consisting of china, glass, wood and willow ware, and general house-furnishing goods." The statement is to be as particular an aocount of their loss or damage as the nature of the case will admit of, and the company in every case reserves the right of the reinstatement, i. e., of the substitution, of new articles in place of those destroyed. �The first paper, that of January 24fch, is without affidavit or even signature, and consists of a reference to the books of the assured under the items of stock as per inventory, varions "invoices, sundries, cash, and suspense," with an added total of |95,928, from which are deducted total sales, profits, amount duties paid, the amount of 10 invoices and traveling expense charged to merchandise, making in all the sum of deductions to be $39,778.19, leaving a balance of |56,- 149.82. �The second and third papers add nothing to the statement by way of particularity. The addition being an affidavit, a statement that all the books of the insured were in possession of defendants for two weeks after the fire, and the statement that some $4,600 worth of goods were in other warehouses and insured by the La Confiance Insurance Company, and concludes the Statement B, "annexed to our proof of loss (the first paper as above designated) contains a complete list of our stocks taken from our books, and is true and cor- rect." And the second paper, that of the twenty-fourth of January, says the "insured claim as follows: On stock consisting of china, glass, wood, and willow ware, and general house-furnishing goods, contained in three-story brick slated building aforesaid." �The question, then, is not whether the insured are exempted by destruction of sources of information from compliance with the stipula- tion to furnish a particular statement, but whether this is in itself a particular statement of the loss or damage to a company who are by the terms of the policy to have 60 days to reinstate, and by insured parties who have offered no evidence tending to show that they did not have unimpaired all of the appliances of wholesale dealers — such as books, invoices, and letters, from which to make a proper statement. It is to be observed that the statement never approaches detail, does not deal in a single particular as to kind or enumeration, and if it gives even the slightest notion of value, does it only by re- ference to the books and invoices in their own possession. The ques- tion is dii'ected in this case to this statement free from all extrinsic matters, and the court is called upon to say whether this is a particular statement. I feel bound to say that it is in no sense a particular ��� �
