It seems to us very clear that there was no sufficient evidence produced on the trial to go to the jury to prove that the plaintiffs did “make any other insurance, whether valid or not, on the property” specified in the policy sued upon, subsequent to the date of its execution. Accepting the evidence produced as true, it does not appear from it, unless by mere vague inference, that the plaintiffs, before the loss by fire, requested the defendant’s agent to supply them with subsequent insurance; nor does it appear that it was agreed between the parties that the defendant should do so. At most, it appears only that the plaintiffs thought of getting additional insurance, and that the defendant’s agent sought to induce them to do so. It does, however, appear affirmatively that they did not receive the policy tendered- them, and that they did not pay the premium demanded; if such arrangement had been feasible, the agent of the defendant did not agree that the policy tendered by him should become the property of the plaintiffs, and he would hold it for them until they should pay the premium. It does not appear that there was any purpose of the parties to observe a very unbusiness like and unreasonable “ custom of insurance companies to write p dicies and *571hold them for the convenience of the insured until the premiums were paid.” The mere fact that defendant’s books “showed that this policy had been regularly issued and a record made in said book,” was not evidence to prove a contract of insurance; nor was the mere fact that the plaintiffs demanded of the company the payment of the supposed additional insurance, evidence of such contract. The evidence went to prove that the contract of insurance contemplated — talked about — -thought of — was to be made in the ordinary way by executing a proper policy. There was not the slightest evidence of a purpose to make a merely verbal contract. The alleged contract, behind which the defendant seeks to find shelter, was never consummated; nor was what was said as to it in any sense binding upon any party; nor did it come within the meaning or purpose of the clause of the policy sued upon, and relied on as a defence by the defendant.
Judgment affirmed.