BEAMAKS V. KOBTHWBSTBBK MUT. LIFB INS. 00. 327 �made "at the office of the agent of the company in Minneap- olis, Minnesota." �Fifth. That the First National Bank of Minneapolis imme- diately succeeded to the agenoy of the Hennepin County Sav- ings Bank for the collection of premiums for the defendant company, and was anthorized to collect the premium due April 24, 1877, and was the only agent at that place. The plaintiff had no actual notice of the agency of said bank. The defendant had a state agent at St. Paul. �Sixth. That plaintiff and insured -were informed by William B. Mason, agent of defendant at Minneapolis, shortly before the premium of 1876 became due, that it was not material that the same should be paid when due, but that it might be paid at any time within several months thereafter without prejudice to their rights. �Seventh. Silas A. Seamans, father of the assured, testifies that, at the request of the assured, he went to Minneapolis to pay the premium due April 24, 1877. He-cannot fix the exact date, but says that it was not after the maturity of the premium. He went to the Hennepin County Savings Bank, where payment had been made the year before, and offered to pay the amount, but was informed that that was not the place to pay it, and that he would probably have to go to St. Paul. Although he made inquiry of several persons besides the bank officers, with whom he conversed, he failed to find the agency in Minneapolis, and was not informed that the First National Bank of Minneapolis was the agent. �Eighth. The assured was killed June 23, 1877, by a boiler explosion on Lake Minnetonka, Minnesota, and the premium due AprU 2e, 1877, was not paid or tendered either before or after his death. �Upon these facts should the court declare and enforce a forfaiture of the policy on account of the non-payment of the dividend due April 24, 1877? �In Insurance Go. v. Eggleston, 96 U. S. 572, Mr. Justice Bradley, in delivering the opinion of the supreme court, said : �"We bave recently, in the case of Insurance Go. v. Norton, {supra, 234,) shown that forfeitures are not favored in the ����
