It seems to be held, that the policy fails to attach, not only if the property does not exist at the time of the insurance, or if it is then on fire, but also if it is at that time exposed to a near and dangerous fire. (i) The reason given for this is, that the contract of insurance is founded on the assumption, that when the policy attaches the property is not exposed to an extraordinary peril. But where no such circumstances exist, and there is no fraudulent misrepresentation or concealment, a policy against fire may be made by its date to have, without the phrase "lost or not lost," a retrospective operation; if this be the intention of the parties. (j) Fire policies of course insure against fire, and nothing but fire;

(e) Durand v. Thooron, 1 Port. Ala. 238; Watkins v. Durand, id. 251; De Bolle v. Pennsylvania Ins. Co. 4 Whart. 68; Miltenberger v. Beacom, 9 Barr, 198.

(f) See Catlett v. Pacific Ins. Co. 1 Paine, C. C. 615; Leathers v. Farmers Ins. Co. 4 Foster, 259; Foster v. U. S. Ins. Co. 11 Pick. 85. See ante, p. *356.

(g) See Alliance Ins. Co. v. La. Ins. Co. 8 La. 1, and cases supra n. (e).

(h) See supra, p. *432, n. (k).

(i) Babcock v. Montgomery Co. Ins. Co. 6 Barb. 637, 643, 4 Comst. 326; Austin v. Drew, 4 Camp. 360, 6 Taunt 436. See also Bentley v. Columbia Ins Co. 17 N. Y. 421.

(j) Hallock v. Ins. Co. 2 Dutch. 268.

but it may sometimes be a very difficult question, whether a loss for which payment is demanded was a loss under the policy. This question is twofold. First, What is fire? and, secondly, How far does the insurance against fire coyer the consequences of a fire, although the property lost or injured was not itself reached or touched by the fire?