Conduct on the part of the party for whose benefit the condition is inserted, which induces the adversary party to believe that such condition will not be insisted upon or that its performance will be unavailing while there is still time for the adversary party to perform, is ordinarily said to amount to a waiver of such condition.1

A breach of a condition is said to be waived by the act of the party for whose benefit such condition was reserved in continuing to accept benefits under the contract,2 as by accepting premiums under a contract of insurance after breach of a condition.3 If it is the duty of the party who elects to take advantage of a breach of condition to restore what he has received under such contract, his act in retaining the benefits of the contract for an unreasonable time with full knowledge of the facts operates as a waiver.4 If the insurance company, with knowledge of a breach of condition, retains premiums which it should repay if it elects to takeadvantage of such breach, such conduct on the part of the insurance company operates as a waiver of such breach.5 If a condition is not self-executing, the failure to object to a breach of such condition before loss is said to operate as a waiver thereof.6 Since in a case of this sort the adversary party would have been given an opportunity to protect himself by making a new contract if he had been notified of the intention to enforce such breach, the result which is reached seems to be just whatever we may think of the reasoning which is employed.

Co., 217 N. Y. 336, 111 N. E. 1062; Hudson v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 218 N. Y. 133, L. R. A. 1917A, 482, 142 N. E. 728.

North Carolina. Grier v. New York Mutual Life Ins. Co., 132 N. Car. 542, 44 S. E. 28.

Virginia. Virginia Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Richmond Mica Co., 102 Va. 429, 102 Am. St. Rep. 840, 46 S. E. 463.

Wisconsin. Dowling v. Lancashire Ins. Co., 92 Wis. 63, 31 L. R. A. 112, 65 N. W. 738.

2 See Sec. 2137 et seq.

1 Arkansas. Wells v. Townsend & Freeman Co., 134 Ark. 560, 204 S. W. 417.

Kentucky. Inter-Southern Life Ins. Co. v. Duff, 184 Ky. 227, 211 S. W. 738.

Michigan. Slider v. Pere Marquette R. Co., 194 Mich. 581, 161 N. W. 961.

Mississippi. Illinois Central R. Co. v. Wm. Atkinson & McDonald Co., 113 Miss. 678, 74 So. 616; Illinois Central R. Co. v. Bauer, 114 Miss. 516, 75 So. 376, Berstein v. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co., 116 Miss. 382, 77 So. 146.

Missouri. Young v. Hartford Life Ins. Co. - Mo. -, 211 S. W. 1.

North Carolina. Reynolds v. Adams Express Co., 172 N. Car. 487, 90 S. E. 510.

North Dakota. Shark v. Great

Northern Ry. Co., 37 N. D. 342, 164 N. W. 39.

Oklahoma. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. McDowell, 42 Okla. 300, L. R. A. 1918E, 391, 141 Pac. 273.

Virginia. Virginia Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Richmond Mica Co., 102 Va. 429, 102 Am. St. Rep. 840, 46 S. E. 463.

West Virginia. Sheppard v. Pea-body Ins. Co. 21 W. Va. 368; Deitz v. Providence Washington Ins. Co., 33 W. Va. 520, 25 Am. St. Rep. 908, 11 S. E. 50; Peninsular Land Transpor. & Mfg. Co. v. Franklin Ins. Co., 35 W. Va. 666, 14 S. E. 237; Cleavenger v. Franklin F. Ins. Co., 47 W. Va. 595, 35 S. E. 998; Medley v. German-Aliance Ins. Co., 65 W. Va. 342, 2 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 99, 47 S. E. 101; Houseman v. Home Ins. Co., 78 W. Va. 203, L. R. A. 1917A, 299, 88 S. E. 1048; Pauley v. Sun Ins. Office, 79 W. Va. 187, L. R. A. 1918E, 473, 90 S. E. 552.

Wisconsin. Lorenz v. Hart-Parr Co., 140 Wis. 261, 50 L. R. A. (N.S.) 796, 131 N. W. 446.

2 Ancient Order v. Davidson, - Ark. - , L. R. A. 1917C, 914, 191 S. W. 961; Upton v. Travelers' Insurance Co., -Cal. -, 2 A. L. R., 1597, 178 Pac. 851; McClure v. Mutual F. Ins. Co., 242 Pa. St. 59, 48 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1221, 88 Atl 921.

•

If a provision in a contract with a common carrier for the transportation of goods requiring written notice of loss may be waived,7 such provision is waived by the act of the carrier in treating such claim as presented in sufficient form before the lapse of the period within which the shipper could present his claim in compliance with the original provisions of the contract.8 If one party reserves the right to terminate the contract and such option is to be exercised within a certain time, the provision as to time is waived by the act of the adversary party in requesting the party for whose benefit such condition is inserted not to exercise such option within such time, in the hope that performance of the contract may be such that he will eventually decide not to exercise such option.9

3 Ancient Order v. Davidson, - Ark. -, L. R. A. 1917C, 014, 191 S. W. 961; McClure v. Mutual F. Ins. Co., 242 Pa. St. 59, 48 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1221, 88 Atl. 921.

4 Alabama. Queen Ins. Co. v. Young,

86 Ala. 424, II Am. St. Rep. 51, 5 So. 116.

California. Sharp v. Scottish Union & Nat. Ins. Co., 136 Cal. 542, 69 Pac 253.

Minnesota. Schrelber v. German-American Hail Ins. Co., 43 Minn. 367, 45 N. W. 708.

Nebraska. Hanover F. Ins. Co. v. Bohn, 48 Neb. 743, 58 Am. St. Rep. 719, 67 N. W. 774; German Ins. Co. v. Sha-der, 68 Neb. 1, 60 L. R. A. 918, 93 N. W. 972.

South Carolina. Pearlstine v. Westchester F. Ins. Co., 70 S. Car. 70, 49 S. E. 4.

Wisconsin. McQuillan v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Asso., 112 Wis. 665, 88 Am. St. Rep. 986, 56 L. R. A. 233

87 N. W. 1069, 88 N. W. 925; Fraser v.

Aetna L. Ins. Co., 114 Wis. 510, 90 N. W. 476.

5 Alabama. Queen Ins. Co. v. Young, 86 Ala. 424, 11 Am. St. Rep. 51, 5 So. 116.

California. Sharp v. Scottish Union & Nat. Ins. Co., 136 Cal. 542, 69 Pac 253.

Minnesota. Schreiber v. German-American Hail Ins. Co., 43 Minn. 367, 45 N. W. 708.

Nebraska. Hanover F. Ins. Co. v. Bohn, 48 Neb. 743, 58 Am. St. Rep. 719, 67 N. W. 774; German Ins. Co. v. Sha-der, 68 Neb. 1, 60 L. R. A. 918, 93 N. W. 972.

Wisconsin. McQuillan v. Mutual Re-serve Fund Life Asso., 112 Wis. 665, 88 Am. St. Rep. 986, 66 L. R. A. 233, 87 N. W. 1069, 88 N. W. 925; Fraser v. Aetna L. Ins. Co., 114 Wis. 510, 90 N. W. 476.

6 Arnold v. American Ins. Co., 148 Cal 660, 25 L. R. A. (N.S.) 6, 84 Pac 182.