Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/773

 PUTNAM V. COMMOKWEALTH INS. 00. 759 �ings took place on a renewal in 1871 for one year. During ihat year the plaintiff conveyed the premises, and took a mortgage on them. Before the year expired he applied to Harmon for a renewal, and then told Harmon, "the person who had, as agent, as defendant's agent, countersigned the policy and the two renewal certificates," that the premises had heen sold, and to whom, and showed him the mortgage, and paid the premium. Harmon said to the plaintiff that he would "make it ail right," and gave him a renewal certificate fiigned and countersigned like the former onea. Harmon waa the duly authorized agent of the company at Oswego, and did ail of the business of it there except settling losses. In the present case, Carr says : "I received applications for policies, and had authority to write and issue policies, without writing to the company." �In the Whited Case the interest plaintiff had in the premises as a mortgagee was not stated in the policy or in the renewal «ertificates. The defendant contended that the policy was void. The plaintiff contended that there had been a waiver of the requirement that the change of interest of the plain- tiff should be indorsed on the policy. The defendant replied that Harmon could not bind the defendant by any such " waiver. The court say: "Upon the facts in the case, as set- tled by the verdict, there was a paroi waiver of the conditions rested upon by the defendant, and a paroi consent to keep on foot the insurance of the plaintiff, in bis new status of mort- gagee, if Harmon was the agent of the defendant in thedeal- ing for the last renewal, and not the agent of the plaintiff. Fish V. Cottenet, 44 N. Y. 538 ; Shearman v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co. 46 N. Y. 526; Pechner v. Phœnix Ins. Co. 65 N. Y. 195; Van Schoick v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co. 68 N. Y. 434; Bidioell V. N. West. Ins. Co. 24 N. Y. 302." Then, referring to the clause respecting agency, the court say : �"That clause we have held to be forceful in Rolirback v. Ger- mania Fire Ins. Co. 62 N. Y. 47, and Alexander v. Same, 66 N. Y. 464. We have not held it so, as yet, f urther than the scope of the facts in those cases. The case in 66 N. Y. hangs upon the case in 62 N. Y. In the latter case it was held that, aa the. ����