8EAMÀNS V. NOBTHWESTEBN MUT. UFZ IHS. 00. 825 �Sbamans V. The Northwestbbn Motoal Life Instjeanob Co. �{Circuit Court, D. Minnesotti. August 4, 1880.) �1. LiFB Insurance — Fobfeitube — New Agent. — A life insurance policy, �containing a provision that the same should "cease and determine" if the premium shoiild not be paid when due, is not forfeited by the failure to pay such premium on the day it is due, where the company neglected to inform the assured of a change in the agent authorized to receive the same after they had adopted a rule to give such notice in ail cases, and the assured tendered the premium in due season to the former agent of the company, and was unable to find the new agent after reasonable inquiry. �2. Bame — Same — Reasonable Time. — In such case the assured was en- �titled to a reasonable tim& before a forf eiture could be declared. �3. Same — Same — Same. — The failure to pay such premium for 60 days �after it was due was not, under such circumstances, an unreasonable time, where the company had waived the time of payment in the previous year, and it did not appear at what time, if ever, the assured was informed of the place of payment. �Charles J. Bartleson, for plaintiff. �Geo. L. e Charles E. Otis, for defendant. �McCeaey, C. J. This is an action upon a policy of insur- ance upon the life of one Albert P. Beamans, dated April 2e, 1874, for $1,000. �At the December term, 1879^, there was a trial by jury and a special verdict, upon which judgment was rendered for the plaintiff for the sum of $6.09 only, that being a dividend due the insured at the time of his death. The court held that the plaintiff could not recover on the policy because the same had been forfeited by the non-paymeut of the premium which matured April 24, 1877. The policy provides that if the premiums shall not be paid when due the policy "shall cease and determine." �A motion for a new trial was made by the plaintiff upon the ground that the judgment was not warranted by the evi- dence, and was contrary to law, and also on the ground of newly-discovered evidence. The court, while doubting the sufficiency of the newly-disoovered evidence to change the resuit, sustained the motion and granted a new trial, with a ����
