DIGEST OF INSURANCE CASES EMBRACING ALL DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME, APPELLATE, AND MANNER AFFECTING INSURANCE COMPANIES, NESS MAY BE CONDUCTED. ALSO, REFERENCES TO ANNOTATIONS AND TO LEADING ARTICLES ON VOL. IX. FOR THE YEAR ENDING OCTOBER 31, 1896. BY JOHN A. FINCH, OF THE INDIANAPOLIS BAR INDIANAPOLIS: THE ROUGH NOTES COMPANY, PUBLISHERS FIRE INSURANCE. Policy-Other Insurance-Knowledge of Agent-Estoppel.-One S., the general agent of certain insurance companies, called upon plaintiff, and asked to be allowed to place some of the insurance on plaintiff's stock. He inquired how much insurance plaintiff intended to carry, and plaintiff told him $40,000, and subsequently authorized him to place $10,000 of such insurance. S. afterwards delivered to plaintiff policies, including two of $2,500 each, to which were attached riders allowing other insurance to the amount of $27,500, both of which contained the condition, that if the assured should have or afterwards effect other insurance without the written consent of the company the policy should be void, and which also provided that only certain specified officials should have authority to waive or modify the conditions of the policy. When plaintiff received the policies, he examined them to see that the amounts were correct, but, relying on his conversation with the agent, did not examine them further, and placed them in his safe. Held, that by delivering the policies with knowledge, through their agent, of the amount of insurance intended to be taken, the companies waived the condition as to other insurance, and were estopped to set the same up after a loss, plaintiff having a right to rely on such knowledge of the agent. Sanborn, Circuit Judge, dissenting. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. et al. v. Norwood et al. (U. S. C. C. A., 8th Policy-Iron-Safe Clause-Divisible Contract-Pleading-Insuffi cient Plea. In an action on a fire insurance policy, a plea setting up that plaintiff failed to comply with a clause in the policy requiring her to keep the last inventory, and accounts of purchases and sales, in an iron safe, is demurrable, as failing to state a defense to the whole action, where, in addition to stock, the policy covers fixtures and furniture. Same Same-Knowledge of Company-Estoppel. The failure of insured to keep her last inventory, sales and purchases, and her books of account in an iron safe, or in some building other than that in which the insured property is located, as required by the policy, does not render the policy void where the insurance company knew, at the time the policy was issued, that the insured had no iron safe, and intended to keep the inventory and accounts in the building where the property was located. Same-Increase of Risk-Evidence. Where, in an action on an insurance policy, the defense was that plaintiff, by erecting an addition to the building in which the insured property was located, increased the risk, proof that the addition brought the house a few feet nearer another house does not show an increase of risk, there being no evidence of the distance bween the two buildings. Mitchell v. Mississippi Home Ins. Co. (Miss. S. C.), 18 Southern Reporter (Sept. 18, 1895), 86. Contract to Insure-When Incomplete-Powers of Local and Special Agents.-An insurance company is not liable for loss on a building burned before the application for insurance was mailed to it, merely because the local agent, when application was made, told applicant that his insurance would begin at the time, he having no actual or ostensible authority to make a contract, and the building being of a class which the company did not insure; and it makes no difference that at the time of the application the special agent of the company, who had no authority to enter into contracts, was present and approved it. O'Brien v. New Zealand Ins. Co. (Cal. S. C.), 41 Pacific Reporter (Sept. 19, 1895), 298. Policy-Vacancy-Notice-Forfeiture.-A policy of insurance issued on a building "occupied for store, dwelling purposes, and saloon," contained a provision that the insured should notify the company if the premises should become vacant and unoccupied for more than fifteen days, otherwise the policy should be void. The policy was indorsed: "Permission granted for vacancy for thirty days from the date of policy." At the time of issue and acceptance of the policy, the premises were unoccupied, and were so known to be by the company. Held, that the policy was void, if, at the expiration of thirty days given for vacancy, the insured failed to notify the company. Same "Vacant and Unoccupied ”—Definition.—A practical occupancy, consistent with the purposes for which the building is insured, is intended, and the company has a right to the care and supervision involved in an occupancy for "store, dwelling, and saloon purposes." Same Same-Instruction.-An instruction to the effect that if the building was shown to have been occupied only by a brass band that met there in the evening for practice, and by a man in the daytime as a sleeping place, and was vacant except when so occupied, the verdict should be for the defendant, unless it had notice of the character of such occupancy, is not erroneous. Pabst Brewing Co. v. Union Ins. Co. (Kansas City C. A.), 1 Missouri Policy Proofs of Loss-Forfeiture.-Under a condition of a fire policy, that insured should, within sixty days after loss, render a sworn statement stating his interest in the property, the cash value of each item, |