UILLER V. ALIilANOB INS. CO. 07 BOSTON. 649 �law to the evidence, and I now leave the questions of fact presented in the issues submitted for your determination. �The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. ���MiLiiEB V. Allunoe Ins. Cp. oy Boston, �(Oireuit Court, 8. D. New York. Juue 4, 1881.) �1. Insurance — Ovbbtaluation. �A policy of Insurance is not avoided by an overvalution, in accord- ance with the terms of the instrument, where such valuation was made in good faith, and only assumed to make a true representation of the facts so far as they were known to the applicant. �2. SaME — TiTLB OF ASSDBED — iNSUKABIiE InTBBEST. �A policy of insurance provided that if the interest of the assured in the property be any other tlian the entire, unconditional, and sole ownership of the property, for the use and beneflt of the assured, or if the building stood on leased ground, it must bff so represented and expressed in the written part of the policy, or the same would be void. Hdd, that so long as the assured, under claim of right, haid the exclusive use and enjoyment of the insured property, without any assertion of an adverse right or interest in it by any other peraon, he had an insurable interest under the condition of the policy. �3. Same— Pboof of Loss. �Defects in the proofs of loss, by reason of the absence of the build- er's certiflcate and that of the nearest notary or magistrate, is imma- terial where the insurers have repudiated all liability under the policy upon other grounda. — [Ed. �N. B. Hoxie, for plaintiflF. �Geo. W. Parsons, for defendant. �Motion for New Trial. �Wallace, D. J. So far as the defendant's motion for a new trial rests upon the ground that the verdict for the plain- tiff was contrary to the evidence, it may be briefly disposed of. There was a decided preponderance of testimony in favor of the defendant's theory that the value of the property insured was considerably less than was represented by the plaintiff in bis application for insurance and in bis proofs of loss, but there was also direct and positive testimony to sus- tain the correetness of the plaintiff's estimate of value, the ��� �
