Court Opinion

ID: 9417116
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 20:03:43.644539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:42:09.416924
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Strong.
I dissent from the judgment given in this case. The insurance effected by the policy became forfeited by the non-payment ad diem, of the premium note. The policy then ceased to be a binding contract. It was so expressly stipulated in the instrument. Admitting that the company could afterwards elect to treat the policy as still in force, or, in other words, could waive the forfeiture, the local agent could *245not, unless he was so authorized by his principals. The policy declared that agents should not have authority to make such waivers. And there is no evidence in this case that the company gave to the agent parol authority to waive a forfeiture after it had occurred.' * They had ratified his acts extending the . time of payment of' premium notes, when the extension was made before the notes fell due. But no -practice of the company sanctioned any act of its agent done after a policy had expired,' by which new life was given to a dead contract.