Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/161

 BUNKLE V. CITIZENS' INS. 00. OF PITTSBUBGH, PENN. 149 �must in fact be made or tendered. A promise to pay it in the future is not sufficient, nor is a request that the party call and recoive it sufficient ; it must in fact be paid or ten- dered to the party. In this case the policy was issued by Adam Gray & Co., who were the general agents of the defend- ant, and a question is made whether a general agent who issues a policy bas the power of eancellation ; but as it is admitted that there was a special authority given them by the Company to cancel the policy, it is not necessary to determine that question. The facts in this case show that the notice and tender of premium, if any was given and made, was not given or made in person by Adam Gray & Co., but by one Elliott; and it is claimed by the plaintiff that although Adam Gray & Co. h ad the power of eancellation, that Elliot possessed no such power; that it was a power which could not be delegated by Adam Gray & Co. to Elliot. The general proposition that such power could not be dele- gated is certainly true. Delegatus non potest delegare. If, therefore, you find that Adam Gray & Co. had attempted to delegate this power to Elliott,; and, acting tinder that authority, he had attempted himself to cancel the policy by virtne bf such authority, it would not amount to a eancellation of the policy. �If, however, Adam Gray & Co., acting under their authority from the company, and for the oompany, prepared the notice of eancellation as their act for the company, or the act of the com- pany through them, and provided the money to be paid by them for the company, it was" not necessary that they should in person have delivered to the plaintiff the notice, and paid or tendered to him the money. They could have these things done by Elliot. "Such service would not be of such a Per- sonal character as to corne under the maxim," delegatm non potest delegare. May on Insurance, 154. Such delivery of notice and tender or payment of the money by Elliott would be a cancellatiou of the policy. ��� �