*1 160 v. INSUBANCE SIMPSON Breck are this point uncertain. the numerous authorities Among Dodge, v. v. N. v. 11 N. H. Smith 11 H. Young, Day, Enfield Davis, 2 N. H. v. 36 N. H. 569. 303, Hall distance running "Whereland is described in a deed as boundary, a visible without line, though to an ascertained measurement such line is control which will as of itself monument regarded v. Flagg conveyed. land admeasurement and fix the extent cited. authorities 145; Pick. Breck v. Thurston, Young, 13 supra, in the breach then, was no monument, Hough’s line, As therefore covenants of the defendants’ intestate. The entitled to on the report. Simpson Insurance v. Fire Farmers’ Windham August 10, 1876.

Company. Estoppel. Insurance — charter, its was, by whose duty The directors of an insurance company, and determine insured, to ascertain fire to cases injury property insur- his to pay the amount of loss or windows, hay, ance on him the give him besides saved from the articles other defendant declined to and thereafter the accept, a legal of the board of of a unanimous vote pursuance all offers ing, withdrew for less a verdict and recovered brought The plaintiff defendants were Held, money. the sum offered of the plaintiff’s had determined the amount alleging to the contract. according Kockingham Circuit Court.

From insurance, March 1873. dated a policy Assumpsit, $1,666.00 L, dwelling-house insurance 333.00 his barn, Upon 132.00 his hay, And upon $2,131.00 constituted and by-laws, application policy, The constitution contract. : In case as follows of the constitution was 5th article insured member fire to damage by happening SIMPSON INSURANCE CO. in and in thereof with said said member shall *2 of from to the said writing thirty days secretary company the board, time the damage may have and happened, a view of in same, the such other as way and, shall ascertain and determine the amount of loss or damage,

if the the is not satisfied with of party the determination suffering board, the said party be submitted to or the question may may said against damage, an action for said loss or company in court to be liolden and for the county of Rockingham, afterwards; year one said the time of and not and if, trial of said amount shall be recovered greater board, suffering the amount determined the the upon by party shall interest have therefor said with against judgment thereon from suit; the time said loss and costs damage happened, aforesaid, but if no more shall be recovered than amount the the said nonsuit, shall become and shall re- party the said company Provided, cover however, their costs : that the last mentioned judgment shall in no wise affect the claim of said to suffering the party of loss or as determined board by the aforesaid. provided, also, that the execution not issue on said judgment against until after the company of three months from the rendition expiration thereof.”

All the thus insured destroyed by fire October ten and a half except sash, windows and some fourteen which was in a stair-railing, saved condition. damaged seasonably of loss. plaintiff gave requisite the And on 9, 1873, December at a the of directors meeting, board legal of the defendant voted to the his full insurance company pay plaintiff hay on and and to him doors, windows, the ($132), all other articles saved from the besides said was, on and declined to thereof, day On the 12th January, 1874, the defendant pur- suance of an unanimous vote of the board of directors at a legal withdrew all offers and notified him ing, they plaintiff, found a jury damages for the assessed verdict sum $1,511, from the date of the expiration with interest three months from loss. The there- time of notice of defendants moved that to be as of with recorded judgment denied, costs for the defendants. This motion the court proforma the defendants excepted. of law thus and transferred to the raised was reserved question J., court C. C. C.

superior by Foster,

Bartlett and Small, for the plaintiff. defendants.

Hatch for the Marston, SIMPSON INSURANCE as part C. J. The writ referred and pleadings Cushing, sufficiency case, regard and no is raised in question of declaration. The rendered. is as to be only judgment to the question defendants, after, vote a unanimous I think in this case the all overtures and for compro- corporation, withdrawing propositions of dam- mise, are had the amount say determined every their propositions When defendants withdrew ages. had a to act withdrawal. kind, right certainly defendants, having Even amount, once determined supposing might still determination, could not afterward annul that his action it, thereupon bring refuse plaintiff might abide his dec- had them for the contract. If he against alleged violating that might the amount, laration that the determined but no taken to the declaration. him, conclude *3 1873, does directors, Ladd, J. vote of the passed of the not show that and determined the they ascertained loss, That fair of their constitution. plaintiff’s meaning an be, they offer of namely, understood that what purports vote to just determination judicial rather than settlement quasi of Jan. loss, their vote clearly amount of 1874, shown by most were expressly made the whereby plaintiff” offers the circuit ruling withdrawn. Eor this reason I think the proforma court, right. was denying ascertainment was an J. The vote December Smith, 9,1873, as contemplated loss and damage, determination more nothing It was article 5 of the constitution company. sum in an offer the defendants defendants so It is clear the damage. satisfaction of of December time, understood it at the at their for, meeting the refusal because of to refer the matter voted following, January on plaintiff to made to the plaintiff. to withdraw all offers unanimously notice of the insured The 5th provides article ; and may happen from the time it days thirty such manner as or in other the amount directors, view, dam- shall ascertain and determine the unreason- notice, and, after age. seasonably gave 1ns determine able of the defendants ascertain neglect therefor. No could his suit 'to recover declaration of no averment taken trial must be exception I think overruled. neglect. unreasonable verdict. on the