434 . FEDERAL REPORTER. �fîudson Company, and half in the Lancashire company; but that the policy might be cancelled, and the whole risk put in the Lancashire, and the unexpired or retum premium used for re-insurance, and they inclosed the policy to Craig for that purpose. �Upon receiving the policy, November 9, 1875, Craig imme- diately wrote "cancelled" upon it. But he did not place the risk in the Lancashire company, or any other. He made up the retum premium and placed it with the policy, thus marked "cancelled," in the safe, intending to go to Boston the next morning, the tenth. But he did not go; and the next morn- ing, the eleventh, the fire occurred, with the policy and pre- mium still in Craig's eafe. He gave no notice to Eeed Bros., or Mr. Poor, that he had not re-insured the property. The next day, the eleventh, after the fire, Craig sent the return premium to Eeed Bros., at Boston, by express ; but they de- clined to receive it. Of this proceeding, or negotiation for cancellation of the policy, Poor had no knowledge, nor had he given any authority for it, other than that the Eeed Bros, were agents to procure the insuranee for him, �Upon this evidence the court ruled that there was no con- tract for cancellation of the policy completed which could bind the parties; that, waiving the question of authority in Eeed Bros, to make a contract for cancellation, they had con- sented to it only with the understanding that Craig should procure a re-insurance in the Lancashire company ; and, fail- ing to do this, the Hudson company could not insist that the policy was cancelled and leave Poor to bear the loss, espe- cially as they had not given him notice that they had not re-insured or returned him the premium. To this ruling the defendant excepted. But it was, we still think, correct. �The first proposition of the Hudson company was to cancel the policy in whole or in part; to place the risk in the Lan- cashire company or return the premium, as the plaintiff might elect. He assented that the policy might be cancelled for the whole, and the property re-insured by them in the Lan- cashire company. The two were coupled together, and there is no evidence that the plaintiff agreed that the policy should ����
