required the employer to use all due diligence in prosecuting to conviction the employee, this was held a condition precedent to the right of the insured to recover.1 On a guaranty policy of a clerk's faithful and diligent performance of his duty, who left a large sum of money in open bags in his room while he went to lunch, which money disappeared while he was gone, it was held that the insurers were liable. The allowance of over-drafts without security, in collusion with the parties overdrawing, is a loss "by the want of integrity, honesty, and fidelity, or by the negligence, default, or irregularities of the manager" of a bank.

§ 2205. Insurance against Bankruptcy, and of Payment of Debts-Rents-Titles. In several English cases insurance taken out against loss on the returns of one's business by the bankruptcy of purchasers has been before the courts. In Maryland suit was brought on a policy of insurance guaranteeing the payment at maturity of a promissory note. Rents are also a subject of insurance, and so are titles.

§ 2206. Insurance of Animals. - Live-stock is frequently insured in this country. A provision in the charter of a mutual live-stock insurance company that the business of the company shall be confined to certain counties does not deprive one who has removed horses insured in those counties to another county from recovering on the policy for their loss. But an insurance of horses against death by accident or disease by a company whose charter and articles of incorporation only author

1 Fearnley v. London Guar. Soc., 9 Ins. Law J. 160.

* In re Citizens' Ins. Co., 16 Can. L. J. 334.

Bank of Toronto v. Ins. Co., 14 L. C. Jur. 186.

7 Hurl. & N. 5; Solvency Guarantee Co. v. York, 3 Hurl. & N. 588; Solvency Guarantee v. Freeman, 7 Hurl. & N. 17.

5 Ellicott v. Ins. Co., 8 Gill & J. 166. Coventry Mut. Live Stock Ins.

6

Solvency Guarantee Co. v. Froane, Ass. v. Evans, 102 Pa. St. 281.

ized it to insure property "against loss or damage by fire, lightning, and inland navigation and transportation" is void.' A company authorized to insure "live-stock, wagons, harness," etc., "being upon farms as farm property," but not village property, within one hundred feet. of other buildings, is not liable for live-stock and harnesses insured as farm property, but destroyed while in a village barn within one hundred feet of other buildings.2 The liability under a policy upon "live-stock on premises" is not avoided by the fact that the horse killed was not owned by the assured when the policy was issued, but was afterwards acquired by him in exchange for horses that were then on the premises. Under a policy for safe carriage of live-stock, covering, with the usual exceptions, the perils of railroad and river, the insurers are liable for a loss occurring in a necessary transshipment from cars to steamboat, upon the route, if not caused by a peril excepted. One who beats his insured mare with an iron rod so that she dies cannot recover the insurance.5

ILLUSTRATIONS. A fire policy insured a horse described as in a certain barn. The policy contained a lightning clause. The horse was struck by lightning while at pasture. Held, that the company was liable: Haws v. Philadelphia Fire Ass'n, 114 Pa. St. 431. B was insured against damage by fire "on his horses and colts while in barn, and by lightning only while in use, or running in pasture or yard on his farm, in the town of L." Held, that the risk against lightning while the horses were "in use" or "running in pasture" was not limited to the farm occupied by plaintiff at the date of the issue of the policy, but extended to any place in the town: Boright v. Springfield Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 34 Minn. 352.

§ 2207. Storms-Hail.-Insurance against hail-storms is practiced in this country. A policy insuring against loss by "fire or storm" does not cover a freshet occa

1 Ins. Co. v. Martin, 13 Minn. 59. Wildey v. Ins. Co., 52 Mich. 446. 3 Mills v. Ins. Co., 37 Iowa, 400. Etna Ins. Co. v. Stivers, 47 Ill. 86; 95 Am. Dec. 467.

5 Western Horse and Cattle Ins. Co. v. O'Neill, 21 Neb. 548.

6 Mutual Hail Ins. Co. v. Wilde, 8 Neb. 427.

sioned by the melting of the snow and prevailing south winds and rain, which carried away the property. Where a policy on growing crops provided for an appraisal of damages, and stipulated that on demand of the agent managing the assessment, the necessary costs should be deposited by the insured before the assessment should be made, it was held that he could not recover for an alleged loss by hail, if such security was proved to have been demanded and refused.2

3

§ 2208. Insurance against Birth of Issue. — In England this form of insurance is to be found. "The risk," says Bunyon, "may be either coupled or not with some. contingency dependent upon the duration of human life, such as the attainment of a particular age by the issue.

1 Storer v. Ins. Co., 3 Phila. 38. 2 Ins. Co. v. Wilde, 8 Neb. 427.

3 Bunyon on Life Insurance, 98.

CHAPTER CV.

OFFICERS AND AGENTS.

$2209. Authority of agent of insurer to bind principal — In general.

§ 2210. What is and what is not within power of general agent― Before policy issued.

$2211. After policy issued.

§2212. Payment of premium.

$2213. To accept notice.

82214. Waiver of conditions in policy.

§2215. Agents of mutual insurance companies.

§2216. Powers of local or special agents.

$2217. Of subagents and clerks.

§2218. Agent is agent for insurer.

$2219. Liability of insurer for misrepresentations of agents. $2220. Mistakes or omissions of agents.

§ 2209. Authority of Agent of Insurer to Bind Principal-In General. The general rules as to the authority of the agent to bind his principal apply in most instances to the cases of the agents of insurers. A general agent of an insurance company has power to bind his principal in all matters within the scope of his agency, and the secret limitations of his power made by his principal do not bind strangers who treat with him under his implied powers. An agent of an insurance company who has general charge of the business of the company for a state, and who acts under general instructions to such agents, and without special limitations upon his authority, is a general agent.3

§ 2210. What is and is not within Power of General Agent Before Policy Issued. Before the contract is consummated, and the policy issued, the general agent has large powers. Thus the following have been held.

See ante, Title Principal and Agent. Ante, Title Principal and Agent; South. Life Ins. Co. v. McCaw, 96 U. S. 84.

Southern Life Ins. Co. v. Booker, 9 Heisk. 606; 24 Am. Rep. 344.

May on Insurance, sec. 129; citing Gloucester Mfg. Co. v. Howard Fire

within his powers, viz.: To make a parol contract to insure and issue a policy; to insure property beyond the limits of his territory; 2 to change or modify the description of the property in the application.3

-

§ 2211. After Policy Issued. And when once the contract is perfected, and the policy issued, his powers are still many. Thus an agent has been held to have implied power to grant a permit to an insured to reside in a prohibited district.5

§ 2212. Payment of Premium. An agent authorized to receive payment of the premium may receive a check instead of currency; or he may waive payment of the premium; or he may request the insured to keep the money until the policy arrives; or he may agree to be responsible to the company and accept the applicant as his personal debtor; or give credit for the premium;' or receive the premium before it is due." But he has no

Ins. Co., 5 Gray, 498; 66 Am. Dec. 376; Brockelbank v. Sugrue, 5 Car. & P. 21; Warner v. Peoria Mar. & Fire Ins. Co., 14 Wis. 318; Dayton Ins. Co. v. Kelley, 24 Ohio St. 345; 15 Am. Rep. 612; Rowley v. Empire Fire Ins. Co., 36 N. Y. 550; Malleable Iron Works v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 25 Conn. 465; Combs v. Hannibal Ins. Co., 43 Mo. 148; 97 Am. Dec. 383; Moliere v. Penn. Fire Ins. Co., 5 Rawle, 342; 28 Am. Dec. 675; Benson v. Ottawa Agr. Ins. Co., 42 U. C. Q. B. 282; Mancur v. St. Louis Ins. Co., 68 N. Y. 625. But see Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Webster, 69 Ill. 392.

Angel v. Ins. Co., 59 N. Y. 171; 17 Am. Rep. 322.

2 Lightbody v. Ins. Co., 23 Wend. 18; Knox v. Ins. Co., 12 Cent. L. J. 105. 3 Gloucester Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co., 5 Gray, 497; 66 Am. Dec. 376.

May on Insurance, sec. 129; citing Healey v. Ins. Co., 5 Nev. 268.

5 Walsh v. Ins. Co., 30 Iowa, 133; 6 Am. Rep. 664.

6 Tayloe v. Ins. Co., 9 How. 390; Goit v. Ins. Co., 25 Barb. 189.

8

10

South. Ins. Co. v. Booker, 9 Heisk. 606; 24 Am. Rep. 344; Ball and Sage Wagon Co. v. Aurora Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 20 Fed. Rep. 232; Marvin v. Ins. Co., 85 N. Y. 278; 39 Am. Rep. 657.

268.

9

Hallock v. Ins. Co., 26 N. J. L.

May on Insurance, sec. 134; citing Sheldon v. Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co., 25 Conn. 207; 65 Am. Dec. 565; Bouton v. American Mutual Life Ins. Co., 25 Conn. 542; Post v. Etna Ins. Co., 43 Barb. 351; Woody v. Old Dominion Ins. Co., 31 Gratt. 362; 31 Am. Rep. 732; Gerlach v. Ins. Co., 4 Ins. Law J. 239; Home Ins. Co. v. Curtis, 32 Mich. 402; Mississippi etc. Life Ins. Co. v. Neyland, 9 Bush, 431; Chickering v. Globe Mutual Life Ins. Co., 116 Mass. 321; Jones v. Ins. Co., 8 Ins. Law J. 415; Angel v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 59 N. Y. 171; 17 Am. Rep. 322.

Boice v. Thames and Mersey Marine Ins. Co., 38 Hun, 246.

463.

Fahrenkrug v. Ins. Co., 68 Ill.