The object of the provisions in the policies of insurance, requiring the assured to submit himself to an examination under oath, to be reduced to writing, was to enable the company to possess itself of all knowledge, and all information as to other sources and means of knowledge, in regard to the facts, material to their rights, to enable them to decide upon their obligations, and to protect them against false claims. And every interrogatory that was relevant and pertinent in such an examination was material, in the sense that a true answer to it was of the substance of the obligation of the assured. A false answer as to any matter of fact material to the inquiry, knowingly and willfully made, with intent to deceive the insurer, would be fraudulent. If it accomplished its result, it would be a fraud effected; if it failed it would be a fraud attempted. And if the matter were material and the statement false, to the knowledge of the party making it, and willfully made, the intention to deceive the insurer would be necessarily implied, for the law presumes every man to intend the natural consequences of his acts. No one can be permitted to say, in respect to his own statements upon a material matter, that he did not expect to be believed; and if they are knowingly false and willfully made, the fact that they are material is proof of an attempted fraud, because their materiality, in the eye of the law, consists in their tendency to influence the conduct of the party who has an interest in them, and to whom they are addressed. "Fraud," said Mr. Justice CATRON, in Lord v. Goddard, 13 How. 198, "means an intention to deceive." "Where one," said SHIPLEY, C. J., in Hammatt v. Emerson, 27 Me. 308-326, "has made a false representation, knowing it to be false, the law infers that he did so with an intention to deceive." "If a person tells a falsehood, the natural and obvious consequence of which, if acted on, is injury to another, that is fraud in law." BOSANQUET, J., in Foster v. Charles, 7 Bing. 105; Polhill v. Walter, 3 Barn. & Adol. 114; Sleeper v. Ins. Co. 56 N. H. 401; Leach v. Republic F. Ins. Co. 58 N. H. 245. An attempt is made by counsel for the plaintiffs in error to distinguish between matters that are material only as evidence and matters material to the contract and liability of the defendants in error thereunder, and in argument the distinction is illustrated by the following statement: "Where the question is as to the extent of the loss, and the assured know ingly exaggerates his loss, and makes false statements concerning the same, his conduct must of necessity be held fraudulent, for he invites the company to take a false position, to assume new and unjust obligations, to pay a loss that has not been sustained and does not exist, to do that which will prejudice and damage the company. But if the assured had made a true statement of his actual loss, and then answered falsely, for personal reasons, as to the parties from whom he had purchased the goods, or the value of those purchased from a certain house, then there could be no fraud, because there could be no prejudice or damage. The questions would be material as evi dence, but not material as to the rights and liabilities of the company." 96) 865 But this position is untenable. The fact whether Murphy had an insurable interest in the merchandise covered by the policy was directly in issue between the parties. By the terms of the contract he was bound to answer truly every question put to him that was relevant to that inquiry. His answer to every question pertinent to that point was material, and made so by the contract, and because it was material as evidence; so that every false statement on that subject, knowingly made, was intended to deceive and was fraudulent. And it does not detract from this conclusion to suppose that the purpose of Murphy in making these false statements was not to deceive and defraud the companies, as is stated in the bill of exceptions and certificate, but for the purpose of preventing an exposure of the false statement previously made to the commercial agency in order to enhance his credit. The meaning of that we take to be simply this, that his motive for repeating the false statements to the insurance companies was to protect his own reputation for veracity, and that he would not have made them but for that cause. But what is that but that he was induced to make statements known to be false, intended to deceive the insurance companies, lest they might discover, and others through them, the falsity of his previous statements; in other words, that he attempted, by means of a fraud upon the companies, to protect his reputation and credit? In any view, there was a fraud attempted upon the insurers; and it is not lessened because the motive that induced it was something in addition to the possible injury to them that it might work. The supposition proceeds upon the very ground of the false statement of a material matter, knowingly and willfully made, with the intent to deceive the defendants in error; and it is no palliation of the fraud that Murphy did not mean thereby to prejudice them, but merely to promote his own personal interest in a matter not involved in the contract with them. that contract the companies were entitled to know from him all the circumstances of his purchase of the property insured, including the amount of the price paid and in what manner payment was made; and false statements, willfully made under oath, intended to conceal the truth on these points, constituted an attempted fraud by false swearing which was a breach of the conditions of the policy, and constituted a bar to the recovery of the insurance. * By Such we understand to be the precise effect of the rulings of the justice presiding at the trial of the case in the court below, in refusing the requests to instruct the jury as asked by the plaintiffs in error, and in giving the instructions contained in the charge excepted to, and finding no error in them, the judgment is affirmed. (110 U. S. 119) ALLEN and others v. WITHROW and others. (January 14, 1884.) TRUSTS-NAKED PROMISE-Deed in BLANK-STATUTE OF Frauds-Parol DECLARATION OF TRUST. A verbal promise by the equitable owner of real property to transfer his interest will not, if unsupported by a valid consideration, be of any effect. A deed of such an interest, executed with the name of the grantee in blank, conveys nothing until the blank is filled by a person having authority to insert the name. Under the statute of frauds in force in Iowa a conveyance of real property cannot be shown to be made in trust for another except by an instrument in writing executed with all the formalities of a deed. A parol declaration of trust with respect to personal property must be clear and explicit, and cannot be inferred from mere expressions of intention to create a trust in future. A man who has by deed granted away his interest in personal property absolutely, cannot afterwards impose a trust upon the grantee. On Appeal from the United States Circuit Court for Iowa. Thos. F. Withrow and Geo. G. Wright, for appellees. *FIELD, J. In November, 1875, one John F. Tracey, now deceased, executed to the defendant Thomas F. Withrow a deed of a large amount of property, real and personal, of great value, situated in Iowa. It is alleged that this deed, though absolute in form, was made in trust for one Thusie M. Allen, also now deceased, and the present suit is brought by her heirs at law to charge Withrow, as trustee, and compel him to account to them for the property. Withrow denies the alleged trust, and claims that he owns, in his own right, an undivided half interest in the property, and that the other undivided half belongs to his co-defendant, William L. Scott, as assignee of Tracey. Scott has filed a cross-bill, setting up his title and praying that it may be established. The court below sustained the claims of both defendants, and dismissed the bill, and the case is brought here on appeal from its decree. The facts which led to the execution of the deed in question, and upon which a trust is sought to be established, collected, so far as practicable, from a mass of conflicting testimony, contained in a record of over 850 closely printed pages, are substantially as follows: In the year 1868, when the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Company-a corporation created by the state of Illinois-was about to extend its road from Des Moines to Council Bluffs, in Iowa, a company was formed, consisting of B. F. Allen, of Des Moines, Ebenezer Cook and John P. Cook, of Davenport, in that state, to purchase land necessary for the stations and use of the railroad company between De Sota and Council Bluffs, and also other lands adjoining or near the several stations located by the engineer of the company. The *120 agreement between the parties was at the time a verbal one, but in April, 1870, a memorandum was signed by them, giving its terms, and reciting also the purchases which in the interval had been made. Among other things, it provided that Allen should furnish the money to make the purchases, and provide for the taxes and expenses; that the title to the property should be taken in his name as trustee for the joint account of the parties; and that the net proceeds should be divided between them, as follows: One undivided half to Ebenezer Cook, one-fourth to Allen, and the remaining fourth to John P. Cook. The agreement also provided that Allen should keep an account of the amounts paid out by him, and of the sales, receipts, and expenses, so that from his books a statement might at any time be made, showing the condition of the property, the amount sold, and the prices received; that the sales should be made by John P. Cook and Allen, on the best terms they could obtain, and by their joint action when practicable; that from the proceeds of the sales Allen should retain the interest on his advances, the taxes on the property, and the expenses incurred, and then pay the advances made for the purchase of the property; and that the money and property remaining in his possession, including notes and contracts, after such payments, should be regarded as net profits, and be divided in kind, or converted into money and then distributed, and in either event according to the respective interests of the parties as mentioned above. During this time Tracey was president of the railroad company, and, though he is not named in the agreement, it is conceded that he was entitled to one-half of the interest represented by Ebenezer Cook, and had a right to control and dispose of it. It appears that he had, previously to the formation of the land company, suggested to different parties that in case a litigation then pending, affecting the company, should terminate favorably, a good opportunity would be afforded to make a successful venture in the purchase and sale of land along the line of the road west of Des Moines; and that upon this suggestion the land company was formed. It appears, also, that in a conversation with Withrow, one of his counsel in the litigation referred to, upon the subject of a venture of this kind, Tracey had expressed a desire that his friends should be benefited by the venture; and that he, Withrow, should participate in it, advising him to bear this in mind in making out his bill for legal services. After the land company was formed, and the agreement made had been acted upon, Tracey was reminded by Withrow of this conversation, and of the understanding he had from it that he was to have an interest in the venture. Tracey not only admitted a similar understanding on his part, but declared that Withrow had an interest in it, and in March, 1871, obtained from Ebenezer Cook a statement in writing to that effect. This statement, after referring to the agreement of the land company, and the provision that one-half of the profits arising from the purchase and sale of real estate under it were to be his property; and reciting that it was understood that Withrow and one Johnson should have an interest in the profits of the venture, the amounts of which had not been specified, but were to be thereafter fixed by Tracey and himself, and that the remainder of said profits (if any) should be equally divided between Tracey and himself,-declares that he, Cook, holds the interest specified in the agreement, and all amounts to be received thereon, in trust for the uses and purposes mentioned; that is to say, to pay from such receipts to Withrow and Johnson such amounts, respectively, as should be agreed upon as aforesaid, and to hold the one-half of the remainder in trust for Tracey, his heirs and assigns. * Subsequently, in October, 1872, Withrow, for the nominal consideration of one dollar, executed to Tracey a transfer of his interest in this contract and declaration of trust. In December following, Johnson executed to Tracey a similar transfer upon a like consideration. Withrow testifies that this transfer was made by him, not for the purpose of conveying the ownership of his interest to Tracey absolutely, but to facilitate a settlement with Allen of the affairs of the land company, which were embarrassed by improvident expenditures, and with an understanding that if Tracey realized anything out of the venture he should give Withrow his share. This testimony is corroborated by the statement contained in the deed subsequently executed by Tracey to Scott, that the transfer by Withrow was made upon an agreement that his interest should be protected for his benefit. In November, 1875, Tracey executed to Withrow a deed of all the interest which he then had, or which might thereafter accrue to him, in the lands, notes, and bills receivable arising from the contracts, declaration of trust, and assignments mentioned. This deed recites the original agreement between Allen and the two Cooks, the subsequent declaration by Ebenezer Cook of the interest of Withrow, Johnson, and Tracey in the proceeds of the venture, and the transfers executed in 1872 by Withrow and Johnson to Tracey, and, in addition to conveying the property, authorizes the grantee, in his own name, to enforce a proper partition of it, and to collect for his own use any sums of money which might accrue to the grantor under the contracts, declaration of trust, and assignments mentioned. Previously to the execution of this deed to Withrow, Allen had become bankrupt, and in due course of proceedings his property had been transferred to Hoyt Sherman, as assignee in bankruptcy. Subsequently a suit was commenced in the circuit court of the United States involving the title to the whole of the property of Allen in the land company. In that suit the Charter Oak Life Insurance Company and others were complainants, and Allen, and Sherman his assignee in bankruptcy, were defendants. Withrow intervened and filed a cross-bill, claiming partition of the interest of Tracey held by him under the deed of November, 1875. By the decree of the court, en |