Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/200

 186 FEDERAL REPORTER. �that he was the agent. ofStaiiiels in forwarding the memorandum, and Staniels underatood that he was the agent of the assured; and Sias never appointed Mm his agent, or supposed him to be such. He was in law and in faot the agent of the oompany. Union Trust Ins. Co, V. Wilkinson, 13 Wall, 222; Ins. Go. v. Mahone, 21 Vf nll. l'52 ; iV. J. Life Ins. Go. v. Baker, H U. S, 610, ^/ �There is no serions doubt that Catter, and Sias made a mistake of law, and that Sias made i*;*hrough the representations of Carter, who was a : lawyer as well as an insurance agent. In such a case, if Carter was; agent of the company, a mistake of law, brought. aboui by his representations, may ;be cOTrected in equity, Oliver v. Mutual Corn. Ins. Gol^ Gurtis, 277; Woodbury Savings Bank y. Charter Oak Ins. Go. 31 Conn. 517; Longhurst v. Sta/r Ins. Co^ 19 lowa, 364; 5rteZi V. In«. Co. 98 U. S. 85. �The defendants insist that there was no mutual mistake in thia case, because, though it should be admitted that Carter was their agent to make and forward applications and deliyer policies and receive premiums, still thftionly risk which they took was that which was presented to them by the memorandum- To reform the contract would, therefore, be to make one which perhaps they never would have made. It is not like a case where the policy is issued to the right person and the company rely on some f ailure to make due dis- closure, and are met by evidence that their agent received notice of the facis. Carter, they say, was not their agent to make the contract, and therefore not their agent to make a mistake in the substance of the contract. This argument, though forcible, assumes too barren a view of the statute and decisions which I have cited. Under them. Carter was the defendants' agent to receive the proposai, and what- ever he knew is conclusively presumed to have been known by the company; therefore the company knew that the application was for insurance upon Sias' interest as mortgagee, and in issuing this policy under took to comply with the application. To state it in another way. Carter was the agent of the defendants to complete the con- tract by delivery of the policy, and they are bound by his representa- tion that the policy insures the plaintiff as mortgagee. The record contains some evidence of the loss and of the proof of loss, and I do not understand from the answer and the arguments that the merits of the case are disputed. The complainant is therefore entitled to recover the sum of $1,500 and interest. �Decree for the complainant. ��� �