314.- Letters passing between the in- | Dickinson Co. v. Miss. Valley Ins. Co., sured and his agents are not competent 41 Iowa, 286. evidence against an insurance company. *Ins. Co. N. A. v. Guardiola, 18 Ins. L. J. 810; 129 U. S. 642.

320. Agents as partners. One member of a partnership, who are agents, has all powers of firm to make parol contracts of insurance. Kennebec Co. v. Augusta Ins. & Banking Co., 6 Gray, 204 (Mass.)

321. A commission to two agents jointly expires with the death of one. The survivor cannot bind the company without proof of subsequent recognition or authority. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Wilcox, 57 Ill. 180.

315.- Admissions or declarations of an agent may be admissible in evidence, although related to a past transaction with which he had no connection, if made while acting within the scope of his agency, and related to a subject with reference to which he was empowered to act for the company. *Bartlett v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., 18 Ins. L. J. 554; 77 Iowa, 155. 316. Question for a jury. Where 322.-P. & S. were partners as insurthere is no evidence of the written ap-ance agents. P. alone had a certificate of pointment of an agent, the jury must agency from defendants: both received decide on the fact and the extent of his agency by what he testifies and did, coupled with the acts of the defendants recognizing him. If either party must suffer by the mistake of the agent, it must be the party whose agent he is. Nicol v. American Ins. Co., 3 Wood & Min. 529 (U. S. Cir.)

applications and money for and remitted to defendant. S. had written and spoken to its officers in the business of the firm, defendant knowing P. & S. were partners, and this policy, when issued, was in S.'s possession, signed by the officers in blank, filled up by him and countersigned by P. Held, this is evidence under the stat317.- Where certain statements re-ute and independently thereof of S.'s specting the title were made to H. an authority to act for defendant. That asagent of defendants, and the latter sured being absent at time of the loss, on claimed that H. was their agent only for returning was told by S. to make proofscertain definite purposes, and that he had that he need give no notice of loss. no authority, as such, to fill out applica-Proofs being given to S., the assured betions for parties applying for insurance; ing afterwards told by P. that he had but defendants had recognized him in their policies as their agent, though there was no written evidence of the extent of his authority, and the court upon all the evidence, submitted the question as to the extent of his authority, wholly as one of fact, to the jury; held, that this course was correct. Hough v. City Fire Ins. Co., 29 Conn. 10.

sent them to defendant; they never having been returned to assured nor any objection made to them, it was held that this testimony went to show a waiver of all defects in the proofs, and it seems that it is only for the jury to decide whether P. is the sole agent, or whether S. is not also an agent. Newman v. Springfield F. & M. Ins. Co., 17 Minn. 123.

318. Though, as between the prin- 323.- Policy provided that it should cipal and agent, the powers of the agent not be valid unless countersigned by a may be limited, it still frequently occurs duly authorized agent at a certain place. that the powers of the agent are not thus During such agent's absence his partner limited where the rights of third persons issued and signed a policy in firm name, intervene, if the principal has so acted as which action was adopted and acted to induce such third persons to act upon upon by former upon his return. The the assumption of more extended or un- report of risk sent to general agent conlimited powers. And whether the com-tained copy of the policy, and in it was pany did thus hold their agent out, is a question of fact for the jury. Keenan v. Missouri State Mut. Ins. Co.; and Ryder v. Same, 12 Iowa, 126.

319.- Character and extent of agency is a question of fact for jury to determine.

notice of fact that it was issued in firm name. He expressed no dissent, but wrote for information in reference to risk itself. Premium was paid and received by company with knowledge of preceding facts. Held, that there was a ratifica

Agent's Bond.

tion of the acts of agents in issue of policy, and that company was liable. United Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. N. A., 42 Ind. 588.

327. The statute of Pennsylvania, requiring foreign insurance companies to publish certain statements, is directory, and does not invalidate business done be324. It seems in the absence of any fore such publication, nor invalidate a ecidence as to authority of general agents bond given by any agent to his company of an insurance company, transacting for faithful discharge of duty. It was the business as partners, the only presump-agent's duty to file a copy of his appointtion being of a joint agency, the company ment with the secretary of state, and his is bound only by their joint and concur- default cannot be set up, as a defense rent acts. One alone cannot act. *Summers v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 6 Duval, 19 (Can. Sup.)

against a suit on the bond, by either him or his sureties. Washington Ins. Co. v. Colton, 26 Conn. 42.

325. Agent's bond. A bond was exe- 328.-D. gave a bond to the company cuted by an insurance broker, as the of which he was secretary for the faithprincipal obligor, and two sureties, with ful performance of his duties "during his a condition that if they should pay the continuance in office, by virtue of his apcompany all premiums to become due, pointment," and C. signed the bond as etc., the bond should be void. The surety; D. was continued in office from broker became bankrupt, and at the time year to year by re-election, and when he was indebted to the company in a con- went out of office was in arrears to the siderable sum for premiums, and of company for money received by him and which they received a dividend of six not paid over, to the amount of $990, all shillings in the pound. The premiums of which accrued, however, after his first were due three years before the bank-year in office. Held, that the bond was ruptcy and the company did not call operative only during the first year, and on the sureties until after the bank- did not cover defalcations which occurred ruptcy. Held, 1st, that the sureties were during the subsequent years D. held the not discharged by the laches of the com- office. Kingston Mut. Ins. Co. v. Clark, pany; 2d, that the dividend received by 33 Barb. 196 (N. Y.) them was to be deducted as against the sureties, from the penalty contained in the bond. London Assurance Co. v. Buckle, 4 Moore's Rep. 153 (Eng.)

329.- The death of a surety upon an agent's bond does not discharge his estate from liability for default of agent happening afterwards. Royal Ins. Co. v. Davies, 4 Ins. L. J. 865; 40 Iowa, 469.

330.- Condition of agent's bond being that he "should keep true and correct books of account," the book, kept by him, containing entries of the business of the company only, made by clerks employed by firm of which such agent is a member, is competent evidence against him and his sureties of the amount of premiums collected. Williamsburg Ins. Co. v. Frothingham, 122 Mass. 391.

326.- An agent and his surety in a bond for faithful performance of duties, etc., acknowledged themselves "to be held and firmly bound unto the directors," etc., of the company in the sum of $1,000, "to be paid to the said directors, their successors or assigns." An action was brought on the bond in the corporate name of the company. Held, that the declaration ought to have contained an averment, that the bond was made to the plaintiffs by the name and description of the "directors of the Onondaga County Mutual Insurance Company," but that the declaration was sufficient after ver- duce, as necessary to the defense, condict or judgment by default, without this averment, as the board of directors being the known legal agents of the corporation, were to be regarded as its representatives, in all their official acts. Bayley v. Onondaga County Mut. Ins. Co., 6 Hill, 476 (N. Y.)

331. In a suit brought upon an agent's bond against the sureties, the latter may require the company to pro

tracts between such company and other companies which were represented by the same agent, and who were also parties to the bond. Germania Fire Ins. Co. v. Circuit Judge, 41 Mich. 258.

332.- Agent's bond contained a stipulation that the laws of New York were to

Other Special Cases.

control in determining the liability of the obligors, as if the bond had been made in that state. There was no evidence of any difference between the laws of New York and Maine. Held, that contract must be construed according to the laws of Maine. Scottish Com. Ins. Co. v. Plummer, 70 Me. 540.

pany after latter acquires knowledge of a breach of a surety bond, operates to release the surety, or his estate if he be dead. Rapp v. Phonix Ins. Co., 15 Ins. L. J. 35; 113 Ill. 390.

338. A surety's bond for an agent's contract does not cover advances made by the company to the agent not included within the terms of such contract. Burlington Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 16 Ins. L. J. 778; 120 Ill. 622.

333.- William H. Van Horn had been acting as agent of the Watertown Ins. Co. to March, 1878, at which time there was a balance due the company of uncol- 339. Other special cases. A policy lected premiums to the amount of $400. was executed, and delivered to an agent About same time Perkins and Van Horn of insurers, and then sent back for corwere appointed agents, and gave a bond rection to general agent, who tore off the for faithful performance of their duty, names of president and secretary and seal signed by plaintiff in error Ball as surety. of the company, and afterwards, when reJune 1, 1878, Perkins and Van Horn gave quested to deliver the policy, refused to their firm note to the company for do so. Held, that this gave the insured $473.77, to balance their account as it a right to come into a court of equity for stood April 1, 1878. Action was brought | relief. Chase v. Washington Mut. Ins. upon the bond to recover amount due Co., 12 Barb. 595 (N. Y.) upon the note. There was evidence that the firm had for a consideration assumed foreign insurance company to take out a and agreed to pay balance due company from Van Horn at expiration of his agency. Held, that surety was not liable for money collected and retained by Van Horn, and that under such circumstances the note should be treated as an accommodation note, but that if the firm had collected premiums on the old business, the bond covered them. Ball v. Watertown Ins. Co., 9 Ins. L. J. 662; 44 Mich. 137.

334.- The sureties to an agent's bond are not discharged by the fact that they are not notified of his gradually increasing indebtedness to the company until such indebtedness is in excess of the penal sum in the bond. Watertown F. Ins. Co. v. Simmons, 131 Mass. 85.

335.- Surety on agent's bond may be liable for premiums collected during the portion of the same month which preceded its execution, where by custom agent's balances are not due until end of the month. British Amer. Assur. Co. v. Neil, 19 Ins. L. J. 247; 76 Iowa, 645.

340. The failure of an agency of a

license, or to furnish the clerk of the county court with certain documents, as required by law, does not make the policy void, nor disable the company to maintain or defend an action. Columbus Ins. Co. v. Walsh, 18 Mo. 229.

341.- A foreign insurance company, doing business in New Orleans through an agent, cannot be permitted to frustrate a claim in Louisiana upon a contract made with it, by revoking the power of its agent on the eve of the institution of a suit, for a loss of which it has been notified. Michael v. Mutual Ins. Co., 10 La. Ann. 737.

342. The defendants, the factors of the plaintiff, effected insurance on their stock of tobacco, and other merchandise, in four different companies. Some of the policies were for six months, others for a year, and at different rates. The rate of insurance was equal to one-eighth of one per cent. per month. The plaintiff in the accounts rendered of sales of tobacco, was charged one-quarter of one per cent. per month for the insurance. Held, that the defendants were not to be considered as the plaintiff's agents in the insurances they had effected, but were to be considered as being themselves the insurers of the plaintiff at the rate of one-quarter of one per cent. per month, and as having

Other Special Cases.

347. The agent applied to for additional insurance wrote to another agent at another place; the second agent replied that a diagram and application might be made out and he would forward it to his

reinsured at the best terms they could ob- inoperative to defeat the effect of a sertain in the different insurance offices in vice of summons, there being no other the city. Miller v. Tate, 12 La. Ann. 160. | agent in the state. Semmes v. City F. 343. The facts, that the president of Ins. Co. 36 Conn. 543. a foreign insurance company was at the office of the agent in Boston, soliciting business; that the defendants were invited by the agent to go there and meet him; that the application for insurance was made by the defendants to the agent, and company. The first agent having made that he suggested the company with which it should be effected; that he had the sign bearing the name of the company put up in his office; that he informed the the applicants what the rates of insurance would be; that he received and forwarded applications, and received and returned policies; that he was paid for all his services by the company; and that the notes for the premium were sent to him in blank, and filled up and executed in his office, when the policies were delivered, will authorize a jury to infer that he is not a mere agent to receive and forward papers, but was an agent to solicit, procure, and transact business for the company, within the provisions of Statutes of Massachusetts, 1856, chapter 252. Roche v. Ladd, 1 Allen, 436 (Mass.)

344.— Under the New York statute of 1849, to "extend the remedies at law against foreign insurance companies," which provides that suits may be brought against such companies upon any contract made or delivered in that state, an action lies upon a policy issued and delivered there, by a resident agent of a foreign company, to a non-resident plaintiff. Burns v. Provincial Ins. Co., 35 Barb. 525 (N. Y.)

345.- When the insurance company is a foreign corporation, to say that notice to a resident agent would not be good and binding on the company, would be in conflict with the spirit of the statute of Iowa (Acts of 1857, p. 207, § 9), and to the rules of the common law governing the rights, duties and responsibilities of principal and agent. Keenan v. Missouri State Mut. Ins. Co.; and Ryder v. Same, 12 Iowa, 126.

346.- When a company has an agent in another state upon whom summons can be served, and the laws of that state require the company to keep such agent therein, its revocation of such agency is

out such application without communicating with assured and sent it to the second agent, by whom it was sent to his company, and a policy was returned to the second agent and by him to the first, who delivered it and received the premium; held, the first agent must be regarded as the agent of the company in this particular case, though not employed by them, and not as assured's agent, notwithstanding a clause in the policy that any person other than the assured who may have procured this insurance to be taken by this company, shall be deemed the assured's agent and not the company's under any circumstances whatever. Commercial Ins. Co. v. Ives, 56 Ill. 402.

348.- The appointment of an agent within this state upon whom process can be served in compliance with the statute, does not prevent removal of a cause brought against a foreign company into the United States Court. Newhall v. Atlantic Fire Ins. Co., 8 Phil. 106 (Pa.)

349.- When by written authority a person is authorized to act as "agent or surveyor," held, that the word "surveyor" should not be construed to limit the word "agent." Lycoming Fire Ins. Co. v. Woodworth, 83 Pa. 223.

350.- Under the Iowa statute, service of process upon company admitted to the state may be made upon any of its agents in the state. Company will not be relieved from a judgment obtained against it by default, process having been served on one of such agents, in absence of evidence that the latter used due diligence to notify the company or its general agent. Niagara Ins. Co. v. Rodecker, 7 Ins. L. J. 824; 47 Iowa, 162.

351.- In Iowa service of process may be made upon an agent authorized to solicit risks and forward them to the company. Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Highsmith, 44 Iowa, 330.

Other Special Cases.

352.— Agent of foreign insurance com- to uniformity of taxation required in pany who receives premium after revoca- assessing property and (2) that in effect it tion of the license of the company to do authorized Mississippi to fix by law the business in the state, is liable for the re- amount which Alabama should demand turn of the premium to the assured, and of foreign companies and that thus it such liability is not affected by the fact violated the principle of constitutional law that he had no notice of the revocation of that "the power conferred on the legislathe license when he received the premium. ture to make laws cannot be delegated to McCutcheon v. Rivers, 68 Mo. 122. any other body or authority." Statute being void agents were liable to tax imposed. Clark v. Mobile, 10 Ins. L. J. 357; 67 Ala. 217.

353. Under Maine Statutes when annual license of agent expires, in order to renew it, a certificate that the agency continues, not a new appointment, is required of the company. Schottish Com. Ins. Co. v. Plummer, 70 Me. 540.

355.- The Indiana statute requiring agents of foreign insurance companies, when losses occur to retain moneys of such corporations coming into their possession until the losses are adjusted, or to

Phœnix Ins. Co. v. Burdett, 112 Ind. 204; 17 Ins. L. J. 68.

356.- A pooling agreement between agents of a certain city fixing rates for insurance, is void as against public policy and penalties imposed for its violation can not be enforced. Metzger v. Cleve

357.- Under the New York statute imposing a penalty on the agent of a foreign insurance company who procures insurance in a city or village without first giving the required bond to the municipality, the cause of action so given arises in the municipality and it is imma

was actually signed. Ithaca Fire Dept. v. Beecher, 99 N. Y. 429.

354.- Suit was for a penalty of $10 imposed on company's agents by city of Mobile for violation of ordinance requir-abide the event of a suit is constitutional. ing license for transacting business in that city. The appellants were agents of the Columbus Insurance Company of Mississippi. The laws of that state require foreign companies to pay a license tax of $1,000 to be received in lieu of all other taxes or licenses, which are prohibited to be exacted by any municipal authority. | land, 13 Ins. L. J. 855 (Ind.) The statute of Alabama requires foreign companies to pay a license of $100, and it is further provided "Whenever the existing or future laws of any state of the United States shall require of insurance companies incorporated by laws of this state, or of the agents therof, any deposit of securities in such state for the protec-terial where the contract of insurance tion of policy holders or otherwise, greater than the amount required for similar purposes from similar companies of other 358.- The District of Columbia is a states by the then existing laws of this state within the meaning of the Indiana state, then in every such case, all com- R. S. of 1881, making it unlawful for the panies of such states, establishing or hav-agent of " any insurance company incoring heretofore established an agency or porated in any other state than Indiana ” agencies in this state, are required to to transact business in Indiana without make the same deposit for a like purpose first complying with the requirements of with the treasurer of this state, for taxes, the statute. *The State v. Briggs, 116 fines, penalties, license fees, or otherwise, Ind. 55. an amount equal to the amount of such 359.- An agency of an insurance comcharges and payments imposed by the pany must exist within the county at the laws of such state upon the companies of time suit is commenced, to authorize serthis state, and the agents thereof." Com-vice, when the principal office is elsewhere pany accordingly deposited $1,000 with in the state. Civ. Code § 309. Indiana the treasurer of Alabama, and claimed Ins. Co. v. Capehart, 5 West. Rep. 669; that by above statute they were exempted 108 Ind. 270. from liability to pay license tax imposed. Held, that the statute quoted above was unconstitutional (1) because it violated clauses of constitution having reference

360.- An instruction which in effect declares that if the defendant's agent, without misrepresentation or suppression of the truth on the part of the person de