#### Edward D. Mack, Appellee, v. General Accident Fire & life Assurance Corporation, Limited, Appellant.

Gen. No. 22,331.

(Not to he reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

Instteance, § 435 * —when claim, should "be prorated because insured was engaged in more hazardous employment. In an action upon an accident insurance policy, where the rate of premium was based upon the occupation of the assured, and where liability was not disclaimed, but it was contended by the defendant that plaintiff was injured in doing an act in an occupation classified as more hazardous than that stated in his application, and that therefore his claim should be prorated, and where, although plaintiff was insured on the basis of being engaged as mill proprietor with office work, he was engaged in the more hazardous occupation of super*255intending work, prior to and at the time of being injured, held that the judgment in favor of plaintiff on the basis of his being engaged as a mill owner with office work should be reversed, and a judgment entered in the Appellate Court on the basis of his being erigaged in superintending work.

*254Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmixi., Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the. March term, 1916.

Reversed and judgment here with findings of fact.

Opinion filed April 10, 1917.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Edward D. Mack, plaintiff, against the General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation, Limited, defendant, to recover on an accident insurance policy. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $810, defendant appeals.

John A. Bloomingston, for appellant.

M. D. Dolan, for appellee; Freeman K. Blake, of counsel.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.