Judgment of the Court
THE CHIEF -We are all of opinion that the respondent was the sole and unconditional owner of the property within the meaning of the conditions of the policy, and that the interest of the assured was not untruly stated by him. The North British and Mercantile Ins. Co. v. McLellan and Dolliver v St. Joseph Fire 4- Marine Insurance Co. (4), are authorities in point. The other ob.jections relied on in the appellants' factum, viz., that the assurance in the Quebec Assurance Co. invalidated the policy, was, we think, rightly considered by the Supreme Court of New Brunswick to have been decided adversely to the contention of the appellant in the former case of Temple v. The Commercial Union Assurance Co. by which we are bound. The question of estoppel not referred to in the factum, but raised for the first time at the argument here, is not open to the appellant under the agreement come to at the trial that the facts proved in Temple v. The Commercial Union Assurance Co. should be taken as proved in this case, and that upon this evidence with any additional facts which either party might prove, the case should be decided.
This agreement entirely