xlviii   DEPAR PM ENT OF FIVA. CE—I .,URA OE BRA \rCH,

Insurance Company which he contended was a conclusive authority in favour of the defendants, but I am unable to agree to that view, and the language of the learned Chief Justice (Armour) seems to me to indicate that in his opinion, on a state of facts similar to that which exists in this case a conclusion ought to be come to different from that which was arrived at in that case. He says : " The liability of the agent to pay the defendants the amount of the note of the insured could not be substituted for the liability of the insured to pay it by the act of the agent without the consent of the defendants." Upon the whole the plaintiff is, in my opinion, entitled to judgment for the full amount of the policies with interest from the date of the receipt by the defendants of the proof of death, together with her costs of suit.

An appeal from Chief Justice Sir William Meredith's decision in the above case has been argued and now stands for judgment.

(b.) By an application for life insurance, the interim receipt and the policy, it was provided that no policy was to be in force until actual payment of the first premium to an authorized agent and the delivery of the necessary receipt signed by the general manager of the company.

The general manager who was paid by commission made an agreement with an applicant for a policy that work done by the applicant for himself personally would be taken iii payment of the first premium, and gave him a receipt for it without, however, paying the company.

Hi Id, that the company was not bound.

i3rd May, 1895. Rose, J ; Tiernan r. People's Life Insurance Company. 26 Ontario Reports, p. 596.)

4--PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.

The medical staff of the Equitable Life Assurance Society at Montreal, consists of a medical referee, a chief medical examiner and two or inure alternate medical examiners. In 1888, L. was appointed an alternate examiner in pursuance of a suggestion to the manager by local agents that it was advisable to have a French Canadian on the staff. By his commission L. was entitled to the privilege of such examinations as should be assigned to him by or required (luring the absence, disability or unavailability of the chief examiner. After L. had served for four years it was found that his methods in holding examinations were not acceptable to applicants, and he was requested to resign. which he refused to do, and another French Canadian was appointed as an additional alternate examiner, and most of the applicants thereafter went to the latter. L. then brought an action against the company for damages by loss of the business and injury to his professional reputation by refusal to employ him, claiming that on his appointment, the general manager had promised him all the examinations of French Canadian applicants for insurance. He also alleged that he had been induced to insure his own life with the Company on the understanding that the examination fees would be more than sufficient to pay the premiums, and the asked for repayment of amounts paid by him for such insurance.

Hcld, affirming the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench that by the contract made with L. the company were only to send him such cases as they saw fit, and could dismiss hum or appoint other examiners at their pleasure ; that the manager had no authority to contract with L. for any employment other than that specified in his coininission ; and that he had no right of action for repayment of his premiums, it being no condition of his employment that he should insure his life, and there being no connection between the contract for insurance and that for employment.

(May 6th, 1895. Laberge r. Equitable Life. 24 Canada Supreme Court Reports, p. 595.)

To act as agent for a rival insurance company is a breach of an insurance agent's agreement " to fulfil conscientiously all the duties assigned to him and to act constantly for the best interests of (his employer)" and is sufficient justification for his dismissal.

(25th June, 1895. Eastmure (vs. Canada Accident Assurance Company. 22 Ontario Appeal Reports, p. 408.)

The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Eastmure vs. the Canada Accident, was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada, March 4th, 1896.

5—FIRE INSURANCE   STATUTORY CONDITIONS, FRAUD, RIGHTS OF MORTGAGEE, &C.

1. Where a policy of insurance in one sum covers buildings and chattels, and the land upon which the buildings stand is conveyed by deed without the consent of the insurers in breach of the fourth statutory condition, the policy is avoided in toto and does not remain in force as to the chattels. Distinction between the breach of that condition and the first condition pointed out.

June 25th, 1895—Dunlop (ts.. Usborne, 22 Ontario Appeal Reports, p. 364.)

2. Where an insurance policy is to be forfeited if the claim is in any respect fraudulent it is not essential that the fraud should be directly proved ; it is sufficient if a clear case is established by presumption. or inference or by circumstantial evidence.

The assignee of the policy cannot recover on it if fraud is established against his assignor.

If a sufficiently clear case is made out the court will allow an appeal on mere questions of fact against the concurrent findings of two courts.