Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/670

 terms of the contract or waive its conditions is notice to the insured of limited authority of the agent in these respects, and under such 2 stipulation, insured cannot reply on any actual conduct of the agent as constituting a modification or waiver.” 25 Cyc. 861, and cases cited in note 37 thereunder; Johnson v. Aetna Ins. Co. 107 Am. St. Rep. (Ga.) 123.

“Estoppel or waiver involves knowledge or notice of that which the company estoppes itself from insisting upon, or waives the right to insist by way of defense, and in absence of knowledge or notice the company is not precluded from asserting the defense.” Lamb v. Prudential Ins. Co 22 N. Y. App. Div. 552, 48 N. Y. Suppl. 123; Northern Assurance Co. v. Grandview Bldg. Ass’n. 183 U. S. 308 46 L. ed. 213.

Simpson & Mackoff, for respondent.

“Where an insurance company has once manifested an intent to waive a forfeiture, it cannot subsequently withdraw the waiver unless for fraud on the part of the insured.” Beauchamp v. Insurance Company, 38 N. D. 483.

“An agent clothed with the power of soliciting insurance, delivering policies and collecting premiums is a general agent, and as such has power to waive forfeitures and conditions in the policy, notwithstanding the provision therein that no agent has such power.” Continental Casualty Co. v. Johnson, 119 Ill. 93, 1 C. J. 406, note 19 (a.)

“An agent may waive payment of premium.” North American Accident Insurance Company v. Bowen, 102 S. W. 163.

“Where a clerk of a general agent induces the insured to believe that he has paid the premium due from the insured, the company is estopped to deny payment.” Union Casualty Co. v. Bragg, 63 Kans. 291, 65 Pac. 272.

“General agents have authority to bind the company within the apparent scope of their authority although they act in disregard of instructions not known to the persons contracting with them.” 22 Cyc. 1430, § B.

“The acts of the insurance agent are binding on the company.” L. R. A. note on p. 342 and cases cited.

In which case it is held:

“A local insurance agent having ostensible general authority to solicit applications and make contracts for insurance and to receive first premiums binds his principal by any acts or contracts within the general