808 FBD£BAt BSFOBTEB. �information, on the fifth of March, 1878, addressed a letter to the superintendent of insurance of the state of New York, which, it seems, was put into the hands of the secretary of this Company, and he replied, stating, among other things, that prior to the date when the premium of August, 1877, became due the company had mailed to the complainant a notice that that premium could be paid to the company direct, or to the United States Trust Company; that, if paid to the trust company, it would be subject to the order of the court in the matter, and that an order to that eiiect was made by the court on the seventeenth day of July, of which all the policy-holders had due notice. This statement was incorrect in several particulars. No such notice had been sent to the complainant, nor did the notice which the company misdi-. rected, acoording to its own proof, state that the premium could be paid to the company direct, nor did the order itself so provide. The complainant was then informed that he had chosen to act upon reports and public assertions in reference to the affairs of the company, instead of makinginquiry di- rect at the office. And this was saidin the'face of the secre- taryl's letter of February 18th, in which the assured was in- formed that i Jais policy was forfeited, and. his requests for information were summarily refused, and'treated as the, in- quiries of an impertinent intrader. In the letter of March 9th the secretary f urther says : �"As the matter now stands the company is still, under the ■ order of the court, prevented from entering iato any agreemeat or reviy- ing any policies which have lapsed, or doing anything except to the ci- tent permittcd by the special order of the court issued in reference thereto. However muchdisposed we might be, to re-instate your pollcy, we cannot do no until we are clear of the court proceedings. Then we ean give the matter f urther consideration. We, of course, canmake no promise to' hereafter restbre the policy on the payment of the premium, and can only say that we will consider such facts as you may have to present when we are able to act as a company." �Here the matter was left to rest until August, 1878, when correspondence began between the company and the com- plainant's solicitors. Now, if it be said that in March, 1878, the complainant was thus advised that the court in New York had in July, 1877, authorized the payment of premiums to ��� �
