3 Where a policy was to be void unless each premium was paid within a certain number of days after it fell due, there was held to be no waiver or forfeiture by reason of a mistaken statement of the secretary of the company, made after the time allowed for payment had expired, that the premium had been attended to. Robertson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. 88 N. Y. 541.

Some life insurance companies now advertise that their policies are non-forfeitable; and various provisions are introduced in by-laws or policies to secure the payment of the whole or a part of the sum insured, if any premiums are paid, although subsequent premiums are unpaid.2 And recent statutes of Massachusetts and some other States provide, that after certain premiums have been paid, if no more are paid, there shall be no immediate forfeiture; but the actual value of the policy shall be estimated, and applied to the payment of premiums until it is exhausted.3

Insurance against death or injury by accident is now not uncommon, companies being formed expressly for this purpose. The principles and rules of law would be the same in this form of insurance as in other forms, so far as they are applicable. In one case, at least, a construction is given which is quite liberal towards the insured. The policy was against "any accident while travelling by public or private conveyances for the transportation of passengers." While walking on a steamboat wharf to a railroad station, in the course of his journey, he fell and was injured. The company were held liable. (uu) 1

(u) Ward v. Blunt, 12 East, 188. See also Pritchard v. Merchants Ass. Soc. 3 C. B. (N. S.) 622. Where the printed proposals allow a certain time within which the premium may be paid, after it becomes due, and they are not referred to in the policy so as to become a part of the contract, the life-insured dying after the premium becomes due, the executors cannot, by a tender thereof within the time allowed by the proposals, recover on the policy. Mutual Ins. Co. v. Ruse, 8 Ga. 545.

1 Whiting v. Massachusetts Ins. Co. 129 Mass. 240.

2 If such a "non-forfeitable" policy provides for a surrender of the policy, and the issuance of a new one for a proportionate sum, the rights of the insured do not depend on such a surrender. Chase v. Phoenix Ins. Co. 67 Me. 85. Where a policy provides that, on default in the payment of premiums, the company will pay at many fractional parts of the sum insured as complete annual payments have been made at the time of such default, each of such annual premiums secures its proportional part, North Western Ins. Co. v. Bonner, 36 Ohio St. 51; Symonds v. Northwestern Ins. Co. 23 Minn 491; Mound City Ins. Co. v. Twining, 12 Kan. 475; and payment of the principal of any notes given in part payment of a premium is not necessary to make up such a "complete annual payment,"1 Ohde v. Northwestern Ins. Co. 40 la. 357; North Western Ins. Co. v. Little, 56 Ind. 504; Hull v. Northwestern Ins. Co. 39 Wis. 397. 8ee Michigan Ins. Co. v. Bowes, 42 Mich. 19; Wilmot v. Charter Oak Ins. Co. 46 Conn. 483.

3 In Massachusetts the statute was held applicable to an endowment policy, where the life-insured survived the term insured, and so notified the company, and the value of the policy at the time of failure to pay the premium was sufficient to extend the temporary insurance beyond such term. Carter v. John Hancock Ins. Co. 127 Mass. 153. See Goodwin v. Massachusetts Ins. Co. 78 N. Y. 480.

(uu) Northrop v. Railway Passenger's Court of Appeals reversed the decision in Assurance Co. 43 N. T. 516. Here the the same case. - in 2 Lansing. 166.

1 A passenger who by a sudden jerk is thrown off the platform of a car while waiting to alight cannot recover on an accident policy conditioned on his compliance with the regulations of the railroad company, one regulation being that "passengers are not allowed to stand on the platform." Bon v. Railway Passenger Assurance Co. 56 la. 664. If accident policy forbids "wilful exposure," negligence is no defence. Providence Life Ins. Co. v. Martin, 32 Md. 310.