2 See Ins. Co. v. Dutcher, 95 U. S. 269; Northwestern Ins. Co. v. Bonner, 36 Ohio St. 51. A policy terminable by failure to pay a premium or any premium note when due, is determined by a failure to pay such a note, or any instalment, and the interest thereon at maturity. Pitt v. Berkshire Ins. Co. 100 Mass. 500; Bigelow v. State Life Ass. 123 Mass. 113; Att'y-Gen. v. North American Ins. Co., 80 N. Y. 152; Nedrow v. Farmers' Ins. Co. 43 la. 24; Lewis v. Phoenix Ins. Co. 44 Conn. 72; Mason v. Citizens' Ins. Co. 10 W. Va. 572; Patch v. Phoenix Ins. Co. 44 Vt. 481; Security Ins. Co. v. Gober, 50 Ga. 404; Catoir v. American Ins. Co. 4 Vroom, 487. But the insurance declares a policy in such a case void by some unequivocal act, Mutual Ins. Co. v. French, 30 Ohio St. 240; and if merely suspended during non-payment, any payment, though the result of a suit, will revive the policy, American Ins. Co. v. Kliuk, 65 Mo. 78; but without such a condition, failure to pay such a note at maturity does not avoid, McAllister v. New England Mut. Ins. Co. 101 Mass. 558.

If the policy provides, that the risk shall terminate in case the premium charged shall not be paid in advance on or before the day at noon on which the same shall become due and payable, and the day of payment falls on Sunday, the premium is not payable until Monday, although the assured dies on Sunday afternoon. (q) 1

All life policies contain a provision that they shall expire, if premiums are not paid at the times and in the manner required by their rules. But these requirements may always be waived. The reception of a promissory note, would certainly be a waiver; and an agreement in good faith between the insured and an insurance agent, that the agent shall be personally responsible to the insurers for the premiums, and that the insured should be the debtor not of the insurers but of their agent, has been held to be a payment of the premiums. (r) 2 Where an agent of an insurance company was instructed that the premium must be renewed within fifteen days from the time of its becoming due, and that if not paid within that time notice must be given, and if not given his account would be debited for the amount; and, accordingly, in a case where the agent did not receive the premium until after the expiration of the fifteen days, and, not having given notice to the insurers, was debited with the amount, and the premium was marked on their books as paid on the expiration of the fifteen days, it was held, that he had no authority to receive it when he did, and that the insurers were not liable. (s) 1 In another case, the life-insured, who had paid the premium for some years, was struck with apoplexy on the day the premium was due, and died the next day; his representatives tendered the premium a few days after, but it was refused, and the insurers were held not liable on the policy. (ss)

(q) Hammond v. American Ins. Co. 10 Gray, 806.

(r) Sheldon v. Conn. Ins. Co. 25 Conn. 207; Bonton v. Am. Ins. Co. id. 542.

1 Taylor v. Germania Ins. Co. 2 Dillon, 282. See Howland v. Continental Ins. Co. 121 Mass. 499.

2 Southern Ins. Co. v. Booker, 9 Heiskell, 606. Contra, where the application denies the agent's right to waive. Greene v. Lycoming Ins. Co. 91 Penn. St. 887. So if the agent credits a premium and is charged, it is a waiver. Train v. Holland Ins. Co. 62 N. Y. 598; Union Ins. Co. v. Grant, 68 Maine, 229. An agent cannot, however, revive a policy overdue by antedating a receipt, Homer v. Guardian Ins. Co. 67 N. Y. 478; nor will failure to disclaim an agent's act in receiving an overdue premium after the insured's death and to return the same constitute a waiver, Busby v. North Amer. Ins. Co. 40 Md. 572. An agent cannot receive a horse in payment of a premium. Hoffman v. John Hancock Ins. Co. 92 U. S. 161. That the acceptance of note and the giving of a renewal receipt is a complete payment of a premium on life policy, see Michigan Life Ins. Co. v, Bowes, 42 Mich. 19 ; Tabor v. Michigan Life Ins. Co. 44 Mich. 324. See farther Chickering v. Globe Ins. Co. 116 Mass. 321; Angell v. Hartford Ins. Co. 59 N. Y. 171; Home Ins. Co, v. Curtis, 82 Mich. 402; Catoir v. American Ins. Co. 4 Vroom, 487.

The utmost care is always requisite on the part of the insured to pay his premium when it is due; and many policies are avoided by negligence in this respect.2 It is not, however, unusual for insurers to accept and treat as a regular payment, a premium offered to them a few days after it fell due, if they are satisfied that no change whatever in the risk had occurred in the mean time. But this they are not bound to do. It is always an indulgence; and ought not to be acted on as a probability, because it is never a right.

Policies sometimes expressly allow a certain number of days for the payment of the premium, after it has fallen due. Then, it would seem that such premium might be paid within that number of days, by the representatives of the insured, although he had died within those days. (t) 3 It would also seem, however, from the cases, that the language of the policy on this subject would prevent any payment after the death of the life-insured from sustaining the liability of the insurers, if the policy indicated their intention, that the payment must be made by the life-insured personally, and therefore while living. (u) l

(s) Acey v. Fernie, 7M.&W. 151. (ss) Howell v. Knickerbocker Ins. Co. 3 Rob. 232.

(t) MDonnell v. Carr, Hayes & Jones (Irish), 256. But see Mutual Ins. Co. v. Ruse, 8 Ga, 545.

1 But see Marcus v. St. Louis Ins. Co. 68 N. Y. 625; Dilleber v. Knickerbocker Ins. Co. 76 N. Y. 56.

2 The insurer is bound to give notice that the premium or premium note is about to become due, if that has been the custom and habit, and the insured has relied upon it to his prejudice, Ins. Co. v. Eggleston, 96 U. S. 572; Lewis v. Phoenix Ins. Co. 44 Conn. 72; especially if the agent is notified not to call as usual, Union Ins. Co. v. Pottker, 33 Ohio St. 459; when a notice is necessary to inform insured of the amount due, Home Ins. Co. v. Pierce, 75 Ill. 426; when by change of agent the insured is ignorant of place of payment, Southern Ins. Co. v. McCain, 96 U. S. 84; Braswell v. American Ins. Co. 75 N. C. 8. But a promise of indulgence in the payment of premiums before the issuing of the policy is of no avail. Union Ins. Co. v. Mowry, 96 U. S. 544. In Mayer v. Mutual Ins. Co. 38 la. 304, a failure of life insurance company to send as usual a notice of the premium's coming due, or to send notice to a new address, as informed, when wont to notify by mail, and a consequent failure to pay the premium, was held not to work a forfeiture of the policy. But where a note was accepted in lieu of the payment of a premium, the policy declaring forfeiture on failure to pay the premium ad diem, or a substituted note at maturity, an omission of the company to give notice according to Its usage, at the maturity of the note, will not prevent a forfeiture for non-payment. Thompson v. Ins. Co. 104 U. S. 252.