The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-11-27

necessarily preclude the theory of waiver. It has been well said that the business of an insurance company IS of necessity carried on by It's omcers and agents. The company and It's or ncers are one and the same within the scope of their authority. The acts or officers and agents are imputaole 70 the company So as a general rule are noticss.'
 Passing consideration as to wheth- CT the collecting bank in Montgomery could, by It's conduct. In accepting the premium overdue, bind the defendant company, we remark that Cofield was more than a mere local agent Of the defendant. He was at the head of de- fendant's Southern Department-iar rer moved from the home office. All trans actions had with the company by per sons In any of the States in the South ern Department territory were under his supervision.
 Ali premiums collected in that ter ritory passed through his ofiice In Att Ianta and were reported from that off, flee once a month. All of the pre- miums paid on the present policy were paid through the Atlanta office. In short, the evidence shows that Cofeld was the defendants alter ego, There fore. we do not hesitate to hold that he might, with knowledge of the fact that a premium had been paid after the date of its maturity, waive the for feiture by, accepting and retaining the same. Such knowledge on his part would be the same as knowledge. car ried home to the company.
 "Did Coheld have knowledge, or were the circumstances such as made knowledge chargeable upon him, that the premium was paid after the due date had expired? He testified that on the Sth day of May he received. from the Montgomery bank a check for $8.S3 which was the amount of the premium on the policy less 10 cents exchange, and that the check was drawn on Chase National Bank, New York. and dated May T. 1908. On these facts he was bound to inform himself paid into the bank in Montgomery, and by receiving 1t and retaining 1t, without making the inquiry, the right to insist on the delay in payment as a ground upon which to rest forfeiture of the policy, was waived
 Furthermore after receiving the premium under the circumstances above detailed 1t was never returned to anyone save the collecting bank in Montgomery. That bank cannot in any sense be considered the agent of the
 
 or of Osborne, who paid the premium. The court Is of the opinion that the affirmative charge was properly given for the plaintiff and refused to the de- fendant"
 The list of opinions handed down yesterday Is as follows:
 TYSON, c. J.:
 Ed Kennedy vs. Whit McDiarmid, ap- peal from Clay County Court; affirmed. HARALsoN, J.:
 Ida R. Lacroix vs. George Malone ct al, appeal from Limestone Circuit Court; affirmed.
 SIMPSON, J.:
 Robert Lange ct al. vs. J. c. F. Hammer, appeal from Culiman Chan eery Court; affirmed.
 George Tribble vs. B. F. Singleton. appeal from Jefferson Chancery Court: reversed and rendered.
 Corona Coal and Iron Co. Ws. Nora White. appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court; affirmed.
 Benjamin Garden ct al vs. Mary HoIs lv, appeal from Jefferson Circuit coifrts affirmed.
 sipsey River Lumber co ct al. vs. Alfred M. Gflliland. appeal from Tus. caloosa County Court; reversed and remanded.
 international Harvester Go. vs. S. J.