Lii PEDBBAIi BEPOETER. �ble proportion of the premium for the unexpired term of the policy," Tield, that the company must 8how that it had given the assured notice that the policy was cancelled, and that it had paid or tendered him such portion of the premium ; and notice that the policy would be can- celled, or a promise to pay, or a request to call for, the premium, is insufflcient. �9. Same— Samb— Same — Power op Agents — Delegatub non potest Dbleoabe. �Agents of an Insurance Company cannot delegate to others the power to cancel a policy ; but it is not necessary that they should, in person, deliver the notice and pay or tender the return premium. �Taft d Llmjd and L. Oeiger, for plaintiff. �C. D. Robertson, for defendant. �Swing, D, J., (charging jury.) The action in this case is brought by the plaintiflF upon a policy of insurance issued by the defendant to the plaintiff on the eighteenth day of May, 1878, insuring plaintiff against loss and damage by fire upon a mill and distillery to the amount of $1,000 The defendant denies liability for the reason that the policy made the appli- cation a part of it, and provided that if any untrue answers or statements were made the policy should be void; that prior to the application a tax had been assessed by the com- missioner of internai revenue against the plaintiff; that a distraint warrant had been issued upon such assessment, and the distillery had been seized by virtue thereof, and that said tax was therefore a lien upon said property ; and that in the statements and answers in regard to liens this lien was not diselosed. The defendant also claims that by the policy it is provided that if the possession of the property should be changed by legal process the policy should be void, and that by virtue of said tax and distraint the property was seized by an oflScer of the government, who sold the same, by which the possession was changed. The defendant further claims that the policy was cancelled. The plaintiff, by reply, denies the legality of the assessment of taxes, the issuing and levy of the distraint warrant, and the sale by virtue thereof, and denies the cancellation of the policy. �It appears from the evidence in the case that the plaintiff was a distiller prior to the issuing of the policy; that before ��� �
