17$ rBDEEAL,BEPORTEB. �tion, Tinless that effect is destroyed by distinct reservation at the time that the conduct shall not so opcrate. Ins. Go. v. French, 4 Big. 369 ; S. C, on appeal, 30 Ohio, 247, is an ex- ample of these cases. See, also, Ins. Co. v. Warner, 80 111. 410; Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 77 111. 384; Bouton y. Ins. Co. 25 Conn. 542; Jollife v. Ins. Co. 39 Wise, 119; Seamans \. Ins. Co. 3 Fed. Eep. 325; Young t. Ins. Co. 4 Big. 5; S. C. 2 Sawy. 325, which was reversed on appeal, because the su- preme court took a different view of the facts. Ins. Co. v. Young, 23 Wall, 85. These cases were relied on by the plaintiffs to show that the company not havjjig claimed a for- feiture, by giving notice of it, none had occurr^ed; or, at least, it had been, on the facts of this case, waived. It is plain, however, that the clatise under consideration protect^ this policy from the prinoiple of these cases sq far as they relate to a requirement of notice, and that it is self-forfeiting with- out sueh notice. The language of the clause itself makes it clear that it does not refer to. notice required by the com- mercial law to parties to the draft, but notice to "any party pr parties interested herein"' — that is, in the policy,- and it means that the forfeiture shall enure without notice to the plaintiffs, and I so charged the jury. �It would be interesting, perhaps, to f ollow up the effect of the holding of the court in this case in its application to other situations of the parties not shown by the proot; as, for exam- ple, if the draft had been negotiated by the company and the holder had neglected to present, or if it had been aecepted and the acceptors had failed to pay. But it is not necessary to test the Boundness of the charge by such means. It will be found on thoughtful consideration, I think, to be consistent with any situation that is possible, to hold that this company •came, as, to this draft, under all the obligations of any ofher holder of such paper; and the minor points suggested in the argument I need not consider. �One of the leamed counsel makes a plausible and forcible argument against the charge by insisting that the draft was iiot negotiable under the law merchant. He urged that the ��� �
