BBAMANS V. NOS'ÏHWESTEBN MUT. LIFE INS. 00 �reasonable inquiry, I think the evidence shows that, through his agent, he did so. ïhe agent he sent to Minneapolis to pay the premium swears that he made considerable inquiry, and names several persons to whom he applied for the name and location of an agent to whom payment could be made. �It is very clear to my mind that if the defendant hàd sent to the assured the cireular notice of the change of agency which it sent to other policy holders, and which it intended to send to him, he would have sent his money to the proper place, and would bave paid his premium in due time. It was, therefore,.the fault of the defendant that the premium was not paid, This is not a case of indifference or wilful neglect on the part of the assured. He was not only willing, but anxious to keep his contract.. He raised the money in time and sent it to Minneapolis for the purpose of making payment. The person sent was unable to find the new agent, of whose appointment, name, and place of business both he and the assured were ignorant. He was, therefore, excused from making payment on the day the premium was due. It is said, however, that he continued to neglect payment until the day of his death, about 60 days after the maturity of the premium. If he was excused from making payment on the day of maturity by the facts and circumstances stated, theu he was entitled to a reasonable time before a forfeiture could be declared. In considering what time would be reasonable, we are to bear in mind that the company had, in fact, waived the time of payment the previous year. The jury find that in 1876 the agent of the defendant at Minneapolis informed the assured that a delay of a month or two would not work a forfeiture, and the assured accordingly paid his premium for that year nearly a month after it was due, without objection on the part of defendant or its agents. Again, it does not appear at what time, if ever, the assared was informed of the place of payment. �Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that a for- feiture cannot be declared on account of the delay in making payment of the dividend, the assured having been excused ����
