L. R. A.
INCLUDING THE CITATIONS OF EACH CASE AS A PRECEDENT: (1)
BY ANY COURT OF LAST RESORT IN ANY JURISDICTION OF
THIS COUNTRY; (2) BY THE EXTENSIVE AND THOROUGH
ANNOTATIONS OF THE LAWYERS REPORTS ANNO-
TATED, THE AMERICAN STATE REPORTS, THE
ENGLISH RULING CASES, THE BRITISH
RULING CASES, AND THE UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT
REPORTS [LAW. ED.].
1-70 L. R. A.
IN SIX VOLUMES.
ROCHESTER, N. Y.
THE LAWYERS CO-OPERATIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the Year nineteen hundred five, by
THE LAWYERS CO-OPERATIVE PUBLISHING CO.,
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C.
Copyright nineteen hundred fourteen, by
THE LAWYERS CO-OPERATIVE PUBLISHING GO.
E. R. ANDREWS PRINTING COMPANY. Unehestor. N. Y.
L. R. A. CASES AS AUTHORITIES.
CASES IN 37 L. R. A.
37 L. R. A. 33, HARDY v. SHEDDEN CO. 24 C. C. A. 261, 47 U. S. App. 362, 78
\Vheu relation of master and servant exists.
Cited in Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. E, Co. v. Berry, 152 Ind. 612, 46 L. R. A. 48,
53 N. E. 415, holding railroad liable for negligence of employees while running
train over another's tracks; Clough v. Grand Trunk W. R. Co. 11 L.R.A. (N.S.)
449. 85 C. C. A. 1, 155 Fed. 84, holding that where a circus company leased
from the railway company, motive power, the use of its tracks, and operatives
for its train, under a contract releasing the railway company from liability for
all injuries, the train operatives were not servants of the railway so as to make
the latter liable for their acts.
Annotation cited in Kelly v. Tyre, 163 Minn. 178, 17 L.R.A. (N.S.) 339, 114
X. W. 750, holding servant of principal contractor did not become servant of sub-
contractor merely by doing an act to facilitate the latter's work when so re-
quested ; Sacker v. Waddell, 98 Md. 50, 103 Am. St. Rep. 374, 56 Atl. 399, holding
that whether the relation of master and servant exists is for the jury where there
is any real question.
Cited in footnotes to Murray v. Dwight, 48 L. R. A. 673, which holds servant
of truckman unloading goods at warehouse, not fellow servant of warehouseman':-;
servants; Swackhamer v. Johnson. 54 L. R. A. 625, which holds hirer of workmen
furnished to third person not liable for their trespass in cutting stranger's timber :
Channon v. Sanford Co. 41 L. R, A. 200, which denies liability of manufacturer
of ornamental decorations for injury to servant by fall of staging erected at.
servant's request by employee of builder; Gagnon v. Dana, 41 L. R. A. 389, which
denies liability of gratuitous lender of brackets for injury to borrower's servants
from unknown defect; Brady v. Chicago & G. W. R. Co. 57 L. R. A. 712, which
holds employees of depot company not employees of railroad company operating
train through former's yard; Stewart v. California Improv. Co. 52 L. R. A. 205.
which holds owner of steam roller liable for engineer's neglect to warn travelers
though roller hired by city; Delory v. Blodgett, 64 L.R.A. 114, which holds expert
machinist sent by employer to make repairs on plants of other persons at their
request the servant of the latter.
Cited in notes (50 L. R. A. 419, 462) on what servants are deemed to be in
same common employment apart from statutes, where no questions as to vice prin-
L.R.A. Au. Vol. V. 1.
37 L.RA. 33]. L. R. A. CASES AS AUTHORITIES. 2
cipalship arise; (46 L. R. A. 35, 57, 88, 122) on right of servant to recover dam-
ages from persons other than his master for injuries received in performance of
his duties; (47 L. R. A. 194-196) on volenti non fit injuria, as a defense to
actions by injured servants; (4 L.R.A. (X.S.) 651) on liability of general em-
ployer for negligence of employee assisting third person without former's knowl-
edge or consent; (17 L.R.A. (X.S. ) 338) on servants of employer and of contractor
as fellow servants: (22 L.R.A. (X.S.) 323) on liability of railroad for negligence
of employee while running on road of another, subject to orders of the latter '3
Unl v as to safe appliances.
Cited in Loehring v. Westlake Constr. Co. 118 Mo. App. 181, 94 S. W. 747, hold-
ing that the duty as to safe place and appliance does not extend beyond the
probabilities of reasonable anticipation within the contemplation of the parties
under the circumstances of employment.
37 L. R. A. 86, SYLVESTER BLECKLEY CO. v. ALEWINE, 48 S. C. 308, 26
S. E. 609.
Effect of Indorsement by stranger before delivery.
Cited in note (72 Am. St. Rep. 680) on effect of indorsement by stranger be-
Provisions rendering notes non-negotiable.
Cited in White v. Harris, 69 S. C. 69, 104 Am. St. Rep. 79, 48 S. E. 41, holding
that an agreement in note to pay ten per cent for attorney's fees does not render
it unnegotiable; Smith Sons Gin & Mach. Co. v. Badliam, 81 S. C. 66, 61 S. E.
1031, holding that note providing for the payment of all expenses of suit in case
of collection by suit, was non-negotiable.
Disapproved in First Xat. Bank v. Badham, 86 S. C. 198, 138 Am. St. Rep.
1043, 68 S. E. 536, holding that note is not rendered non-negotiable by provision
for attorney's fees in case it is necessary to employ attorney to collect.
37 L. R. A. 89, HUTCHISON v. CRUTCHER, 98 Tenn. 421, 39 S. W. 725.
Sufficiency of presentment.
Distinguished in Jackson v. Mclnnis, 33 Or. 532, 43 L. R. A. 129, cited in foot-
note p. 128, 72 Am. St. Rep. 755, 54 Pac. 884, holding demand on receiver peudcnte
lite of insolvent bank insufficient to bind indorser of certificate of deposit issued
Right of subrogation.
Cited in notes (99 Am. St. Rep. 476) on right of subrogation; (37 L.R.A. (X.S.)
1205) on right of one advancing purchase price to subrogation to vendor's
M L. R. A. 94, TEXAS & P. R. CO. v. SCOTT, 23 C. C. A. 424, 41 U. S. App. 624,
77 Fed. 726.
Adverse possession of right of Tray.
Second appeal, Scott v. Texas & P. R. Co. 36 C. C. A. 285, 94 Fed. 342, holding
adverse possession of portion of right of way only immaterial where title acquired
Cited in Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Smith, 63 C. C. A. 3, 128 Fed. 3, holding pre-
scriptive right of way acquired by construction, with owner's permission, and sub-
sequent continuous use. of track for forty years.
Cited in Beasley v. Texas & P. R. Co. 53 C. C. A. 437, 115 Fed. 9.55. denying
3 L. R. A. CASES AS AUTHORITIES. [37 L.R.A. 98
specific performance of contract restricting location of railway stations; Beasley
v. Texas & P. R. Co. 101 U. S. 407, 48 L. ed. 276, 24 Sup. Ct, Rep. 164, refusing
to restrain construction of depot in violation of agreement by prior owner of
road, when public interests are involved; Lucas v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.
64 C. C. A. 640, 130 Fed. 438, holding railroad company relieved from maintaining
entrance to depot grounds as agreed, by reason of change in grade by munici-
pality; Willson v. Winchester & P. R. Co. 41 C. C. A. 218, 99 Fed. 644, raising,
without deciding, question whether railroad liable for failure to continue depot
established in consideration of conveyance; Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Quig-
ley, 181 Fed. 206, holding that specific performance of contract to maintain rail-
road division point at particular point, will not be decreed, where it would impost-
burden on interstate commerce and embarass service of road; Louisville & Inter-
urban R. Co. v. Callahan, 143 Ky. 518, 34 L.R.A. (X.S.) 415, 136 S. W. 1018, hold-
ing that railroad company may move station for better convenience of local public',
a reasonable distance without consent of railroad commission ; Maryland & P. R.
Co. v. Silver, 110 Md. 517, 73 Atl. 297; Atlanta & W. W. R. Co. v. Camp, 130 Ga.
6, 15 L.R.A. (X.S.) 598, 124 Am. St. Rep. 151. 60 S. E. 177, 14 Ann. Cas. 439,
holding that contract to maintain station at certain point is not perpetual, but
whenever the rights of the public demand that it be maintained elsewhere, it may
be moved; Whalen v. Baltimore & 0. R. Co. 112 Md. 199, 76 Atl. 166, on the same
point; Whalen v. Baltimore & 0. R. Co. 108 Md. 19, 17 L.R.A. (X.S.) 134, 129
Am. St. Rep. 423, 69 Atl. 390, holding that an agreement to maintain a side track
and to stop trains for passengers at a certain place was a valid and enforceable
agreement: Jacquelin v. Erie R. Co. 69 N. J. Eq. 437, 61 Atl. 18, holding that
an agreement by a railroad company to maintain a station at a given point will
not be enforced to the detriment of the public, but the individual will be left to his
action on the agreement for damages.
Cited in footnotes to Lyman v. Suburban R. Co. 52 L. R. A. 645, which sustains
condition in grant of right of way for maintenance of depot on land conveyed;
Reed v. Johnson, 57 L. R. A. 404, which holds agreement to convey interest in
land for services in securing location of depot where grantee has agreed to divide
profits with certain officials of road, invalid.
Cited in note (15 L.R.A. (X.S.) 596) on validity of contract of railroad to
establish and maintain station.
Distinguished in Herzog v. Atchison, T. & S. E. R. Co. 153 Cal. 499, 17 L.R.A.
(N.S.) 430, 95 Pac. 898, holding that where enforcement of contract to place
station at certain point would impose great burden upon railroad company, or
such enforcement would be detrimental to the public, and no great benefit would
accrue to the plaintiff, the contract will not be enforced; Taylor v. Florida East
Coast R. Co. 54 Fla. 650, 16 L.R.A.(N.S.) 315, 127 Am. St. Rep. 155, 45 So. 574,
14 Ann. Cas. 472, holding that where land is conveyed for a right of way upon
consideration that the railroad company will construct and maintain a spin-
track and depot at the place and the grantor improves his land in reliance upon
the construction of the track and depot, the contract will be enforced unless the
rights of the public require it to be otherwise.
37 L. R. A. 98, OXSHEER v. NAVE, 90 Tex. 568, 40 S. W. 7.
Offsetting indebtedness against share of heir or devisee.
Cited in Boyer v. Robinson, 26 Wash. 121, 66 Pac. 119, holding that judgment
creditor acquires no lien against devisee's interest in realty until indebtedness to
estate satisfied; Marvin v. Bowlby, 142 Mich. 251, 4 L.R.A. (N.S.) 194, 113 Am.
37 L.R.A. 98] L. R. A. CASES AS AUTHORITIES. 4
St. Rep. 574, 105 X. W. 751, 7 Ann. Gas. 559, holding that an heir's distributive
share in an estate may be applied to the payment of his debt due the estate.
Disapproved in Russell v. Smith, 115 Iowa, 263, 88 N. W. 361, holding debt
owed by heir to decedent not lien against share until reduced to judgment.
Construction of will.
Cited in Cochran v. Cochran, 43 Tex. Civ. App. 263, 95 S. W. 731, holding that
intention of testator must be ascertained from will as whole, and the language
interpreted in the light of circumstances existing at time will was executed,
and intention so ascertained must control the construction of the will.
37 L. R. A. 103, HOLDEX v. HARDY, 14 Utah, 71, 46 Pac. 756.
Affirmed in 169 U. S. 366, 42 L. ed. 780, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 383.
Cited in Re Chart/, 29 Xev. 112, 5 L.R.A.(X.S.) 917, 124 Am. St. Rep. 915,
85 Pac. 352, in stating the facts of a contemptuous criticism of the court by an
Statutory regulation of labor.
Cited in State v. Sopher, 25 Utah, 324, 60 L. R. A. 471, 95 Am. St. Rep. 845,
71 Pac. 482, sustaining statute forbidding barbers to exercise trade on Sunday.
Cited in notes (48 L. ed. U. S. 149, 150) on validity of legislation regulating
hours of labor; (78 Am. St. Rep. 239, 245) on acts which legislature may declare
Limitation of hours of labor.
Followed in State v. Holden, 14 Utah, 97, 37 L. R. A. 110, footnote p. 108,
46 Pac. 1105, and Short v. Bullion-Beck & C. Min. Co. 20 Utah, 26, 45 L. R. A.
604, footnote p. 603, 57 Pac. 720, sustaining eight-hour law for miners, smelters,
Cited in Com. v. Beatty, 15 Pa. Super. Ct. 17, and Wenhani v. State, 65 Neb.
404, 58 L. R. A. 829, footnote p. 825, 91 N. W. 421, sustaining statute limiting
hours of work of women in certain employments; Ex parte Boyce, 27 Xev. 333.
65 L.R.A. 57, 75 Pac. 1, ] Ann. Cas. 66, sustaining statute providing an eight-
hour day for all workingmen in mines, smelters, and mills for the reduction of
Cited in footnotes to Fiske v. People, 52 L. R. A. 291, which holds void, restric-
tion of hours of labor on city contracts to eight hours per day; Cleveland v. Cle-
ments Bros. Constr. Co. 59 L. R. A. 775, which holds void, act limiting to eight
hours a day work of laborers on public contract; Re Dalton, 47 L. R. A. 380, which
sustains eight-hour law applicable only to employees of state, municipality, or
subdivision of state; Re Ten-Hour Law, 61 L. R. A. 612, which sustains limitation
to ten hours a day, work of street railway employees; State v. Buchanan. 59
L. R. A. 342, which sustains prohibition against employment of women more than
ten hours a day in certain establishments.
Cited in note (65 L.R.A. 45) on legislative limitation of hours of labor.
Distinguished in Re Morgan, 26 Colo. 432, 47 L. R. A. 60, footnote p. 52. 77
Am. St. Rep. 269, 58 Pac. 1071, holding void, eight-hour law applying to smelters.
Cited in Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Taylor, 86 Fed. 185, holding provision
for assessment of railroads by state board, without privilege of equalization,
Cited in footnote to Chicago, W. & V. Coal Co. v. People. 48 L. R. A. 554, which
sustains statute for inspection of mines at cost of mine owners.
Subsisting; laws as parts of contracts.
Cited in Curtice v. Schmidt, 202 Mo. 728, 101 S. W. 61, 10 Ann. Cas. ~0->,
5 L. R. A. CASES AS AUTHORITIES. [37 L.R.A. Ill
holding that all subsisting laws are read into and become parts of the contract
whether specifically mentioned or not.
Cited in State ex rel. Ornstine v. Gary, 126 Wis. 141, 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 177,
105 N. W. 792, holding that the legislature may make to doing of an act a
criminal offense, punishable under general laws or under municipal by-laws, or
simply prescribe forfeiture of rights.
37 L. R. A. 108, STATE v. HOLDEN, 14 Utah, 96, 46 Pac. 1105.
Affirmed in 169 U. S. 366, 42 L. ed. 780, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 383.
Statutory limitation of hours of labor.
Cited in Com. v. Beatty, 15 Pa. Super. Ct. 17, and Wenham v. State, 65 Neb.
404, 58 L. R. A. 829, footnote p. 825, 91 N. W. 421, sustaining statute limiting
hours of work of women in certain employments; Re Morgan, 26 Colo. 432, 47
L. R. A. 60, footnote p. 52, 77 Am. St. Rep. 269, 58 Pac. 1071, holding void, eight-
hour law applying to smelters; Re Martin, 157 Cal. 62, 106 Pac. 239, holding
that whether working in quartz mill was so detrimental to health as to re-
quire shortening hours of labor therein, was question for legislature.
Cited in footnotes to Short v. Bullion, B. 4 C. Min. Co. 45 L. R. A. 603, which
sustains eight-hour law for miners, smelters, and refiners; Holden v. Hardy, 37
L. R. A. 103, which sustains act prohibiting employment in underground mines
for more than eight hours per day; Re Dalton, 47 L. R. A. 380, which sustains
eight-hour law applicable only to employees of state, municipality, or subdivision
of state; Cleveland v. Clements Bros. Constr. Co. 59 L. R. A. 775, which holds
void, act limiting to eight hours a day work of laborers on public contract; Fiske
v. People, 52 L. R. A. 291, which holds void, restriction of hours of labor on city
contracts to eight hours per day; Re Ten-Hour Law, 61 L.R.A. 612, which sus-
tains limitation to ten hours a day, w r ork of street railway employees; State v.
Buchanan, 59 L. R. A. 342, which sustains prohibition against employment of
women more than ten hours a day in certain establishments; Chicago, W. & V.
Coal Co. v. People, 48 L. R, A. 554, which sustains statute for inspection of mines
at cost of mine owners.
Cited in notes (65 L.R.A. 45; 78 Am. St. Rep. 245) on legislative limitation
of hours of labor.
37 L. R. A. Ill, STATE ex rel. AMSTERDAMSCH TRUSTEES KANTOOR v.
SUPERIOR COURT, 15 Wash. 668, 55 Am. St. Rep. 907, 47 Pac. 31.
Followed without discussion in 15 Wash. 701, 47 Pac. 1103.
Jurisdiction of Washington supreme court.
Cited in Re Waugh, 32 Wash. 53, 72 Pac. 710, denying supreme court jurisdic-
tion of disbarment proceedings.
To issue writ of prohibition.
Cited in Winsor v. Bridges, 24 Wash. 542, 64 Pac. 780, holding supreme court
without original jurisdiction to issue writ of prohibition against illegal action of
state land commissioners; Cronan v. District Ct. 15 Idaho, 202, 96 Pac. 768,
holding that the court has power to issue a writ of prohibition to prevent the
exercise of assumed jurisdiction by a lower court, where there is no adequate
speedy remedy by appeal.
Appointment of receivers for corporations.
Cited in People ex rel. Daniels v. District Ct. 33 Colo. 302, 80 Pac. 908, hold-
ing that the power to appoint receivers over domestic corporations having been
specially legislated upon, other statutes on the general subject are inapplicable.
37 L.R.A. 115] L. R. A. CASES AS AUTHORITIES. 6
37 L. R. A. 115, WASHINGTON BANK v. FIDELITY ABSTRACT & SECURITY
CO. 15 Wash. 487, 55 Am. St. Rep. 902, 46 Pac. 1036.
Llenable or leviable papers.
Cited in Hanley v. Heidelberg Compound Oxygen Co. 24 Pa. Co. Ct. 503. 8
Pa. Dist. R. 207, holding that a secret formula and process sold by its inventor
to another in exchange for shares of stock and deposited in a sealed envelope. i.~
subject to seizure on a writ of fieri facias.
37 L. R. A. 116, STATE v. HAYES, 98 Iowa, 619, 60 Am. St. Rep. 219, 67 X. W
Larceny of property found.
Cited in State v. Nordman, 101 Iowa, 452, 70 N. W. 621, holding finder appro
priating property guilty of larceny; Berry v. State. 4 Okla. Crim. Rep. 205, 31
L.R.A. (N.S.) 851, 111 Pac. 676. holding that under information for larceny
proof may be made that accused found property and failed to restore it to owner
known to accused, without fact of such finding being alleged in information.
Cited in footnote to Danielson v. Roberts, 65 L.R.A. 526, which holds that
finder of money hidden on employer's premises by unknown previous owner en-
titled to maintain trover against employer for taking away of, and refusal to
Cited in notes (37 L. R. A. 123) on rights and liabilities of finder of property;
(52 L.R.A. 139) on larceny of money or property delivered by mistake; (19
L.R.A. (N.S.) 1201) on rights inter se of joint finders of lost property; (88
Am. St. Rep. 603: 30 L.R.A. (N.S.) 339) on larceny of property found; (8
L.R.A. (N.S.) 95; 35 L.R.A. (N.S.) 979) on rights of finder.
Proof of corpus delicti.
Cited in note (68 L.R.A. 66) on proof of corpus delicti.
37 L. R. A. 127, MILWAUKEE MASONS' & BUILDERS' ASSO. v. NTEZEROW-
SKI, 95 Wis. 129, 60 Am. St. Rep. 97, 70 N. W. 166.
Cited in Bailey v. Master Plumbers' Asso. 103 Tenn. Ill, 46 L. R. A. 564, foot-
note p. 561, 52 S. W. 853, holding void, by-laws of plumbers' association com-
pelling members to pay fixed sums for certain items and restricting purchases to
dealers selling only to members; United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co.
46 L. R. A. 135, 29 C. C. A. 159, 54 U. S. App. 723, 85 Fed. 289, holding combina-
tion of iron pipe manufacturers to restrain competition and control prices, illegal;
State ex rel. Crow v. Armour Packing Co. 173 Mo. 388, 61 L. R. A. 473. 96 Am.
St. Rep. 515, 73 S. W. 645, holding combination of jobbers to control price of meat,
illegal; State ex rel. Durner v. Huegin, 110 Wis. 259, 62 L. R. A. 745, 85 N. W.
1046, holding malicious combination of newspaper publishers to compel reduction
of advertising rates by another, actionable; State ex rel. Crow v. Firemen's Fund
Ins. Co. 152 Mo. 47, 45 L. R. A. 377, 52 S. W. 595, sustaining statute prohibiting
combination to fix rates for fire insurance; Gatzow v. Buening, 106 Wis. 12, 49
L. R. A. 480, 80 Am. St. Rep. 17, 81 N. W. 1003, holding liverymen's association
by-law forbidding rendering service at funerals where undertaker or family patron-
ize nonunion liveries, illegal ; Ferd Heim Brewing Co. v. Belinder, 97 Mo. App.
70, 71 S. W. 691, holding unlawful, agreement by brewers not to sell to one in-
debted to any of them; State v. Duluth Bd. of Trade, 107 Minn. 539, 23 L.R.A.
(N.S.) 1277, 121 N. W. 395, holding that grain exchange was not a combina-
tion in restraint of trade within the meaning of the statute, though it fixed
prices among its members in dealings with nonmembers; State ex rel. Hadley
7 L, R. A. CASES AS AUTHORITIES. [37 L.R.A. 131
v. Standard Oil Co. 218 Mo. 461, 116 S. VV. 902; Lohae Patent Door Co. v.
Fuelle, 215 Mo. 469, 22 L.R.A.(N.S.) 625, 128 Am. St. Rep. 492, 114 S. W.
997 ; 011 the illegality of combinations in the restraint of trade; Kradwell v.
Thiesen, 131 Wis. 102, 111 N. W. 233, holding that a contract not to engage in
the drug business within city within five years, is not void as a restriction of
Cited in footnote to Com. v. Grinstead, 56 L. R. A. 709, which holds agreement
not to resell goods at less than specified price, not within statute for suppression
Entry of judgment pending- motion for new trial.
Cited in Guetzkow v. Smith, 105 Wis. 97, 80 N. W. 1109, raising, without decid-
ing, effect of entering judgment pending motion for new trial.
lOntry of judgment by clerk without coats.
Cited in Dresser v. Lemma, 122 Wis. 395, 100 N. W. 844, holding that the
clerk can enter judgment to the exclusion of costs to either party only when the
clerk can prepare and enter the proper judgment, and not when the judgment
to be entered does not rest upon the verdict, but upon a subsequent determina-
tion of the court.
37 L. R. A. 131, JOHN R. DAVIS LUMBER CO. v. HARTFORD F. INS. CO.
95 Wis. 226, 70 N. W. 84.
Insurance agent a.s agent of assured.
Cited in Wicks Bros. v. Scottish Union & Nat. Ins. Co. 107 Wis. 609, 83 N. W.
781, holding immediate cancelation of policy hot effected by return to broker, who
endeavors to procure other insurance; United Firemen's Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 47
L. R. A. 457, footnote p. 450, 34 C. C. A. 246, 92 Fed. 133, holding insurance
broker authorized to procure certain amount of insurance in companies to be
chosen by him, not insurer's agent; Edwards v. Home Ins. Co. 100 Mo. App. 709,
73 S. W. 881, holding notice of cancelation of policy to insurance broker, notice
to insured corporation, when broker for years had had entire charge of keeping
the corporation property insured; Wasliburn v. United States Casualty Co. 100
Me. 416, 76 Atl. 902, holding that attaching renewal receipt to original accident
policy and charging renewal premium to insured, and crediting it to company,
constituted renewal of policy where agent had charge of all in^ured's insurance
business; Fredrnan v. Consolidated F. & M. Ins. Co. 104 Minn. 80, 124 Am. St.
Rep. 608, 116 N. W. 221, holding that an insurance broker under the statute is
the agent of the insured and not of the insurer except for the delivery of the
policy and the collection of premiums, and this cannot be changed by acts of
parties to the contrary; Welch v. Fire Asso. of Philadelphia, 120 Wis. 460, 98
N. W. 227, holding that a broker who procures insurance for a person, collecting
the premium and delivering it to the agent of the company from who he pro-
cured the "policy, is an agent of the company under the statute; Wisconsin C.
R. Co. v. Phoenix Ins. Co. 123 Wis. 316, 101 N. W. 703, holding same as to a
person not an insurance broker; Costello v. Grant County Mut. F. & Lightning
Ins. Co. 133 Wis. 364, 113 N. W. 639, holding that under the statute one who
forwards an application for insurance and who transmits the acceptance to the
insured, is an agent of the insurer.
Cited in note (38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 627, 639) on insurance broker as agent for the
Power of Insurance agent to bind company.
Cited in footnotes to Cole v. Union Cent. L. Ins. Co. 47 L. R. A. 201, which
holds credit for part of first premium extended by general agent binding on com-
37 L.R.A. 131] L. R. A. CASES AS AUTHORITIES. &
pany; Hall v. Union Cent. L. Ins. Co. 51 L. R. A. 288, which holds admissions by
insurance agent after death of insured, that all premiums paid, binding on com-
pany; McCabe v. ^Etna Ins. Co. 47 L. R. A. 643, which sustains authority of
agent of foreign insurance company to orally renew policy issued by him.
Cancelation of insurance.