The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1917-07-11
Decisions of Supreme Court

The Mutual Life Insurance Company
of New York, defendant and APPEL
liant.
Syllabus: /. e.-Life.-Con-
Premium.-Effect of. Section 6515 of
the Compiled Laws of 1918 provides
as follows: IAN Acknowledgement in
a policy of the receipt of premium
is conclusive evidence of it's payment
so far as to make the policy binding,
therein that it was not to be bind
ing until the premium is actually
paid" The policy contract of insur-
ance under consideration contains no
MUM as of date April 30 1918. Held
that the policy, having after the date
thereof, been delivered, become eff
fective and binding so far as the pay
ment of premium is concerned, on and
after the both day of April, 1913, not
withstanding the actual payment of
premium was at a later date.
2. MISUNDERSTANDING
Application.-Wher insurance Is ap-
piled for and afterwards the policy
is issued and delivered, 1t is -baseo
upon the status of the insured at the
pany assumes the risk after the date
of the policy. The receiEt for the
premium in the policy itself and the
subsequent delivery of the policy
binding obligation from its date.
3. Contfact.-Applica-
ton. No oral or written misFepresen-
tations made in the negotiations of a
contract or policy of insurance by the
insured or in his behalf shall be
deemed material, or defeat or avoid
the policy, or prevent it's attaching
unless such Misrepresentation arc
made with actual intent to deceive,
or unless the matter misrepresenteo
Increased the rick nf lnEa Such ic
language in Section 6501 of the Com
piled Laws of 1913.
4. Insurance.--Life. - Contract
Construction. A contract of life in
surance must receive a reasonable
Interpretation and this is true of to-
answers of the applicant in his appIi-
cation for insurance, His answers
must not be so construed as to COM
pei him to. be his own insurer.
Appeal from the district court of
Williams county. Frank E. Fisk.
Judge.
Affirmed.
Opinion of the court by Grace, J.
Christianson, j., and Bruce, Oh, j..
concurring specially.
From Mercer County.
The Farmers Bank of Mercer
County, plaintiff and respondent, vs..
Knife River Lumber & Grain Com
pany, defendant and appellant.
tion.-Judgment.- The
homestead as defined in extent ana
value by Section 5605 Compiled Laws
of 1913 is exempt from Judgment
lien, execution or forced sale except
as provided in Chapter 81. The de-
PENDANT in this case is not within
any of the exceptions provided in
Chapter 81.
O. Homestead.-Lien.-- Redemption.
Where the husband and wife were
living and residing upon the home
stead at the time they gave a valid
mortgage and were also living upon
the homestead as such at the time a
Judgment was entered against them
and default was later made in the
mortgage and the same was fore
closed, and the husband and wife
continued to reside upon such land
throughout the period allowed by
law for redemption from the sale by
reason of the foreclosure of sucn
mortgage, held that the judgment
creditor could not make redemption
from such foreclosure sale for the
reason that his judgment was no lien
upon the homestead, and having no
lien against such land by reason OF
such Judgment he was not a redemp-