(i) See Wood v. Hartford Ins. Co. 18 Conn. 688; Egan v. Mut. Ins Co. 6 Denio, 826; Farmers Ins. Co. v. Snyder, 16 Wend. 481; Duncan v. Sun Ins. Co. 6 Wend. 488. "If by any words of reference, the stipulation in another instrument, such as the proposal or application, can be construed a warranty, it must be such as make it in legal effect a part of the policy." Per Shaw, C. J., Daniels v. Hudson River Ins. Co. 12 Cush. 423.

(j) Draper v. Charter Oak Ins. Co. 2 Allen, 569. See Denny v. Conway Ins. Co. 13 Gray, 492: Liberty Hall Assoc, v. Housatonic Ins. Co. 7 Gray, 261.

(k) Tebbetts v. Hamilton Ins. Co. 3 Allen, 669.

A large proportion of the contracts of insurance against fire are made through agents of the insurers. The general principles of the law of agency apply to all such transactions; and it is strongly insisted that the insurers are estopped from taking advantage of the acts of their agents, done within the scope of their authority. (ll) 2 A policy made and delivered by an agent, with

(l) Lothrop v. Greenfield Ins. Co. 2 Allen, 82.

(ll) Beal v. Park, etc. Ins. Co. 16 Wis.

241; New England Fire Ins. Co. v. Schettler, 88 Ill. 166; Rowley v. Empire Ins. Co. 86 N. Y. 650.

1 Supple v. Iowa State Ins. Co. 58 la. 29, decided that a failure to pay assessments on a premium note, when on such failure the insurance company had the option to sue for the note or cancel the policy, does not authorize an annulling, without notice to the policy-holder.

2 Tutu, such an agent's authority cannot be limited by special instructions, unless the insured has notice of such limitation. So. Life Ins. Co. v. McCain, 96 U. S. 84; U. S. Life Ins. Co. v. Advance Co. 80 Ill. 549; Alman v. Phoenix Ins. Co. 27 Ia. 208. And his knowledge of errors upon which a policy issues binds the company, if the insured is innocent. Union Ins. Co. v. Wilkinson, 13 Wall. 222; American Ins. Co. v. Mahone,

21 Wall. 152; Eames v. Home Ins. Co. 94 U. S. 621; Germania Ins. Co. v. McKee, 94 Ill. 494; Pechner v. Phoenix Ins. Co. 65 N. T. 195; Miller v. Mut. Ben. Ins. Co. 31 la. 216; Planters' Ins. Co. v. Deford, 38 Md. 382; Dayton Ins. Co. v. McGookey, 33 Ohio St 555; Hadley v. N. H. Ins. Co. 55 N. H. 110; Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 73 Peon. St. 342; Hayward v. National Ins. Co. 52 Mo. 181; N. A. Ins. Co. v. Throop,

22 Mich. 146; Winans v. Allemainia Ins. Co. 38 Wis. 342. An agent to receive applications, take risks, settle terms, and issue policies, is looked upon as a general agent while so acting, Pitney v. Glen's Falls Ins. Co. 65 N. Y. 6; and may orally agree to renew, Baubie v. AEtna Ins. Co. 2 Dillon, 156; and to issue a policy, Angel v. Hartford Ins. Co. 59 N. Y. 171; may act through clerks, Eclectic Ins. Co. v. Fahrenkrg, 68 Ill. 463; Mayer v. Mutual Ins. Co. 38 la. 304; Planters' Ins. Co. v. Myers, 55 Miss. 479; may waive conditions in the policy, Winans v. Allemainia Ins. Co. 38 Wis. 342; Roberts v. Continental Ins. Co. 41 Wis. 321; Shaffer v. Phoenix Ins. Co. 53 Wis. 361; as a condition that change in title or possession will avoid the policy, Miner v. Phoenix Ins. Co. 27 Wis. 693; or that the insured may procure insurance in other companies, Schomer v. Hekla Ins. Co. 50 Wis. 575; but may not waive a preliminary proof of loss, Lohnes v. Ins. Co. of N. A. 121 Mass. 439. That an insurers agent is not the agent of the insured, though so stipulated in the policy or by-laws, see Eilenberger v. Protection Ins. Co. 89 Penn. St. 464; Union Ins. Co. v. Chipp, 93 Ill. 96; Planters' Ins. Co. v. Myers, 55 Miss. 479; that he is, see Alexander v. Germania Ins. Co. 66 N. Y. 464. But see Whited v. Germania Ins. Co. 76 N. Y. 415. - AEtna Ins. Co. v. Olmstead, 21 Mich. 246, decided that if an insurance agent, assuming to know what information an insurance company required, after being furnished by the insured with all the facts, without any concealment, filled out the application and assured the insured that it correctly embodied the facts given by him, thus inducing him to sign it, and received and retained the premium, the insurer could deprive the insured of indemnity by reason of the agent's fraud, unskilfulness, or carelessness. A condition avoiding a policy, if the premises "become vacant or unoccupied," is waived if the insurance a clause providing that it takes effect when approved by the general agent of the company, which policy the general agent disapproved and directed the withdrawal thereof, holds the insurers, if the disapproval is not made known to the insured until after the loss. (lm) 1 Even an oral contract of insurance for one year, made by an agent, was held valid. (ln)