FARMERS ' MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANIES. & 
last five years, while 99 reported having made 2 assessments during 
the same period; 135 reported 3 assessments; 116, 4 assessments; 413, 
5 assessments ; 62, 6 assessments ; 26, 7 assessments ; 22, 8 assessments ; 
and 21, 9 assessments. Thirty companies reported from 10 to 14 
assessments, and 9 more than 15 assessments. The greatest number 
of such assessments levied by any one company during the last five 
years was 29. Thirty-one companies did not report the frequency 
of assessments. From the figures just given it may be seen that the 
most common plan is that of annual assessments, while in the remain- 
ing cases less frequent assessments than 1 per year are considerably 
more common than more than 1 assessment during the 12-month 
period. The plan of collecting in advance at least one year's esti- 
mated cost of insurance, and the assessing in advance for each of the 
succeeding years of the policy term, appears to be gaining in favor 
among these companies. 
LIABILITY OF THE INSURED. 
Of the companies reporting, 829 operated under the unlimited lia- 
bility plan, the insured obligating himself to pay his pro rata share 
of all losses and expenses legally incurred by the company. Of the 
remaining companies, 215 reported limiting the liability of the in- 
sured to a specific amount, while 117 companies returning question- 
naires gave no information covering this question. The average obli- 
gation assumed by the policyholder in the companies which reported 
limited liability was equal to $1.41 per hundred per year while the 
policy remained in force. A special note was required as evidence of 
the liability of the insured by 161 companies while the greater number 
reporting, namely, 872 companies, relied on a clause in the insurance 
contract for the validity of the obligation assumed by the insured. 
One hundred twenty-eight companies reporting did not give in- 
formation upon this point. It would appear, therefore, that less 
than one-fifth of the farmers' mutuals limit the liability of the in- 
sured, and that even a smaller proportion require a premium note. 
The prevailing plan is that of unlimited liability, the obligation to 
pay his proper part of losses and expenses being assumed by the 
insured as a part of the insurance contract. 
CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY. 
The returns from 334 of the companies indicated that they made a 
more or less elaborate classification of the risks insured, while 733 
companies stated specifically that no classification at all was made 
by them. The remaining 94 companies returning questionnaires did 
not answer the question concerning classification. It may be added 
that proper classification for premium and assessment purposes has 
