The insurer must prove that the fire oc curred at a time mentioned in the stipula tion ; Allemania Fire Ins. Co. v. Fred, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 311, 32 S. W. 243.
The character of the safe is not warrant ed; Sneed v. Assurance Co., 73 Miss. 279, 18 South. 928 ; and it is sufficient if it be one of a kind ordinarily known as fireproof ; Knoxville Fire Ins. Co. v. Hird, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 82, 23 S. W. 393.
The stipulation in such a clause, that a set of books should be kept, including a rec ord of all business transactions, does not require a book known as a "cash book," or • • any particular system of bookkeeping ; Liv erpool & L. & G. Ins. Co. v. Ellington, 94 Ga. 785, 21 S. E. 1006. The lost inventory of the business, within this clause, means the lost inventory of the goods insured; Manchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Simmons, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 607, 35 S. W. 722. The clause is complied with, by an inventory made, and books kept from the date of the policy, but an invoice is not an inventory ; Home Ins. Co. of New York v. Bank, 71 Miss. 608, 15 South. 932. The question whether there was reasonable time between the issue of the policy and the fire to make an inventory is for the jury un less the evidence is undisputed ; Allen v. Ins. Co., 106 Mich. 204, 64 N. W. 15. Where the inventory was shown to the adjuster after the fire, and afterwards lost, there was a performance of the condition ; Pelican Ins. Co. v. Wilkerson, 53 Ark. 353, 13 S. W. 1103. But where the books do not furnish the nec essary data, to verify the accounts rendered, the policy is avoided ; id. The clause is not complied with where only unitemized bills are kept ; Coggins v. Ins. Co., 144 N. C. 7, 56 S. E. 506, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 839, 119 Am. St. Rep. 924 ; a requirement to keep a . set of books which clearly and plainly represent a complete record of the business is a promis sory warranty ; YEtna Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 127 Ga,. 491, 56 S. E., 643, L. R. A. (N. S.) 667, 9 Ann. Cas. 461; and where the bal ances from an old set of books were carried forward into a new set and the old ones were exposed to fire and lost, there is not a com pliance with the requirements of the clause : 2Etna Ins. Co. v. Mount, 90 Miss. 642, 44
South. 162, 45 South. 835, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 471.
Formal policy not required. Though a pol icy is the usual instrument by which insur ance is effected, it is not necessary ; First Baptist Church v. Ins. Co., 19 N. Y. 305 ; New England Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Robinson. 25 Ind. 536; Succession of Hearing, 26 La. Ann. 326 ; and it may be evidenced by memorandum or note; Goodall v. Ins. Co., 25 N. H. 169; 76 L. T. N. S. 228; State Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Porter, 3 Grant (Pa.) 123 ; or a letter ; Connecticut Fire Ins. Co. v. Ben nett, 1 Ohio N. P. 71; 14 L. C. Jur. 219. Where the correspondence was held suffi cient to create a valid, contract for a policy of fire insurance, it was held that, after the property had been destroyed by fire, the in sured was entitled to a decree for the amount agreed to be insured, less premium ; Eames v. Ins. Co., 94 U. S. 621, 24 L. Ed. 298. In the absence of a statute forbidding it, it may be verbal; Henning v. Ins. Co., 2 Dill. 26, Fed. Cas. No. 6,366 ; Hamilton v. Ins. Co., 5 Pa. 339 (though this had been questioned; Smith v. Odlin, 4 Yeates [Pa.] 468); Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Parrish, 73 Ill. 166 ; Relief Fire Ins. Co. v. Shaw, 94 U. S. 574, 24 L. Ed. 291; Croft v. Ins. Co., 40 W. Va. 508, 21 S. E. 854, 52 Am. St. Rep. 902 ; Amazon Ins. Co. v. Wall, 31 Ohio St. 633, 27 Am. Rep. 533 ; over ruling Cockerill v. Ins. Co., 16 Ohio, 148; Potter v. Ins. Co., 63 Fed. 382 ; and when made without specifying any date for the in surance to take effect, commences immediate ly ; id. A usage to show a parol contract was inadmissible ; 14 Ins. L. J. (Mass.) 427. In Canada it was held that to recover at law. on a contract of insurance by a corporation, there must be a sealed policy, but on a parol contract the plaintiff may sue for a breach to deliver a policy, or proceed in equity ; 16 U. C. Q. B. 477. The agreement to pay a premium is sufficient to support a verbal con tract ; Fitton v. Ins. Ass'n, 20 Fed. 766. See generally as to verbal contracts, Biddle, Ins. § 138, where the subject is treated histori cally.