This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1902 edition. Excerpt: ..."The evidence, we think, was admissible upon the question of identity of the risk covered by the policy," and further, "the declaration of the plaintiff himself, made after the fire, that he did not intend to insure this tobacco in the defendant's company, was admissible evidence in connection with the other facts of the case, to be submitted under instructions from the Court." After admitting this evidence the Court below granted a prayer which declared that as a matter of law the tobacco in question was not covered by the policy in suit. It was on the granting of this prayer that the judgment was reversed and a new trial awarded, the Court of Appeals declaring that "the question whether or not the policy in suit covered the property destroyed" was a question of fact for the Court sitting as a jury and not a matter of law. The Appellate Court, however, distinctly affirmed the admission of the extrinsic evidence as to subject-matter; and cited the Rule as laid down in the Farme s Mutual Insurance Co. ' . Engle, 52 Md. 479. The Leftwich case is the most recent case in Maryland in which this subject has been discussed, and it may be of interest to note that on the retrial of the case in the Circuit Court of Baltimore County (at which trial the case was most earnestly presented by leading counsel, Mr. Marbury and Mr. Bond for the Plaintiff, and Mr. Whitelock and Mr. Herman for the Defendant), the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the Royal Insurance Company, proof having been again offered to show the declarations of Leftwich as to identity of risk. In summing up the decisions on this subject by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the subject may be considered under three heads: 1....