Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/194

 son v. Jersey City, etc., Co., 14 Vroom. 300; Bank v. Hartford Ins. Co., 95 U. 8. 673; Lynchburg, etc., Co. v. West, 76 Va. 575,(S. C. 44 Am. Rep. 177;) Waterbury v. Dak., etc., Ins. Co., 43 N. W. Rep. 697; Fitch v. Am., etc., Co., 59 N. Y. 557; Washington Ins. Co. v. Raney, 10 Kan. 525; Schwarzbach v. Ohio, etc., Co., 25 W. Va. 622, (8. C. 52 Am. Rep. 227;) Helbing v. Svea, Ins. Co., 54 Cal. 156, (S. C. 35 Am. Rep. 72;) Price v. Phenix Ins. Co., 17 Minn. 497; Campbell v. N. E., etc., Co., 98 Mass. 381; M. & M. Ins. Co. v. Schroeder, 18 Bradw. 216; Elliott v. Ina. Co., 13 Gray 139; Anderson v. Sup. Grand Lodge, etc., 17 AtL Rep. 119; Clapp v. Mass. Benefit Assn., 16 N. E. 433.

In support of the rule stated in paragraph 3 they cited among other cases: Andes Ins. Co. v. Fish, 77 Ill. 620; Kausel v. Farmers etc. Co., 16 N. W. 480; Ins. Co. v. Wilkinson, 13 Wall. 222; Jewett v. Carter, 132 Mass. 135; Ins. Co. v. Allen, 10 N. E., 85; Sullivan v. Ins. Co., 8 Pac. Rep. 112; Planters Ins. Co. v. Baxter, 25 Am. Rep. 780; Gans v. St. P. F. & M. Ins. Co., 43 Wis. 108; Manhattan Ins. Co. v. Weile, 26 Am. Rep. 364; Rowley v. Empire Ins. Co., 36 N. Y. 550; Com. Union Ins. Co. v. Elliott, 13 Atl. Rep. 970; Miller v. Phenix etc., Co., 14N. E. 271. In support of the sixth paragraph they cited: Phenix etc., Co. v. Raddin, 120 U. 8. 183; Wilson v. M. F. etc. Co., 30 N. W. 401; Masonic etc., Asso. v. Beck, 77 Ind. 203, (S. C. 40 Am. Rep. 295;) Stone v. Hawkeye Ins. Co., 28 N. W. 147; Smith v. St. P. F. & M. Co. 13 N. W. 355; Phenix Ins. Co. v. Lansing, 20 N. W. 22; Frost v. Saratoga etc., Co., 5 Denio 154; Fitzgerald v. Hartford etc., Co., 13 AtL 673; Knickerbocker Ins. Co v. Norton, 96 U.S. 234. As to the waiver of proofs of luss they cited: Brink v. Hanover Ins. Co., 80 N. Y. 108; Ins. Co. v. Norton, 96 U. S. 284; Travelers Ins. Co. v. Edwards, 122 id. 457; Cleaver v. Traders Ins. Co. 39 N. W. 571; Badger v. Glens Falls Ins. Co. 49 Wis. 389.

, J. This action is based upon a hail insurance policy issued by the defendant from its office at Chamberlain, Dak., and sent from there by mail to the plaintiff. The policy bears date May 13, 1885, and was issued in consideration of the receipt of a premium note for $70, executed by the plaintiff