Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/671

 scope of his apparent authority, notwithstanding an actual excess of authority. Stearns v. Merchants Life & Casualty Company, 38 N. D. 524.

“A general agent of a company, that is, one empowered to enter into contracts, take risks and receive premiums has general authority to dispense with conditions in policies issued through his agency in the absence of any limitation upon such authority known to the insured, for such acts are within the apparent scope of his authority.” Royal Neighbors of America v. Noman, 52 N. E. 264, particularly that part of the opinion found on p. 266; 75 Ill. App. 546; Home Fire Insurance Company v. Kuhlman, (Neb.) 78 N. W. 936.

, J. This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, which was entered on the verdict of a jury. The facts are as follows: The plaintiff is the beneficiary of a life insurance policy issued by the defendant on the life of his uncle, Henry Boerger. The policy was issued on November 17, 1917, in the sum of $5,000. The premiums were payable on November 17th of each year, with the proviso that, after the policy had been in force a year, 31 days of grace would be allowed. The insured paid the first premium by giving a promissory note. When the second premium became due the insurance company sent an official receipt to the Beach State Bank of Beach, N. D., with instructions to deliver it to the insured upon payment of the premium. The insured had notice that the receipt had been sent, but he did not pay the premium to the bank, nor forward it to the company within the grace period, and the policy lapsed, according to its terms, on December 19, 1918. On the 3rd or 4th of February, 1919, James McGowan, a general agent of the defendant company, and James Haigh, an insurance agent of the same company, called at the farm of Henry Boerger, the insured, for the purpose of obtaining payment or renewal of the first premium note. At this time they also obtained the signature of Boerger to an application for reinstatement of the policy; it being agreed that he should give a note for the renewal premium. Two or three days later, Boerger went to the office of Haigh in Beach, and signed a promissory note for the full amount of the second premium, payable to the order of the Montana Life Insurance Company, and due on or before June 17, 1919. In a letter dated February 6, 1919, Haigh forwarded the application for reinstatement, together with the note, to the defendant company at