"FINDINGS
OF FACT.
"1.
The defendant was at the time of the happenings mentioned
below, a corporation existing under the laws of the State of
Minnesota.
"2.
The defendant, W. P. Woody, was, at the time of the issuance
of the policy of insurance hereinafter mentioned, an agent of
the said Company, authorized to solicit applications for
insurance, to collect premiums and to forward applications to
the defendant Insurance Company at Waseca, Minnesota, for
approval or rejection by said Company.
"3.
On the 7th day of July, 1909, plaintiff J. M. Boyer was the
owner of one hundred acres of growing corn, fifty acres of
which was situated in Section 21, Township 5 South, of Range
9 West of the sixth principal meridian, and fifty acres
situated in Section 21, Township 5 South, of Range 9 west of
the sixth principal meridian.
"4.
On the 7th day of July, 1909, said W. P. Woody, went to the
farm of the plaintiff and took his application for the
insurance of the corn above mentioned, for the purpose of
insuring it against damage from hail, the limit of the amount
of such insurance being $ 1000, the premium for such
insurance being the sum of sixty dollars.
"5.
During the negotiations the plaintiff informed Woody that he
could pay cash or give his note, but it would be more
convenient to give his note. This was agreed to by said
Woody.
"6.
The crop of corn was exceptionally good, and plaintiff also
informed said Woody, in effect, that he desired the
application forwarded at once as he had a fine crop of corn
and did not wish to lose it.
"7.
The application was then drawn up and the note was executed
made payable to the order of W. P. Woody, which was done for
the convenience of Woody in having it discounted.
"8.
Woody had never been expressly authorized to accept notes in
payment of premiums, but it had been his habit to take them
and have them discounted and send in the cash with the
application.
"9.
Woody's residence and place of business was in Cawker
City, Mitchell County, Kansas. He arrived in Cawker City
about seven o'clock in the evening. On the 8th day of
July at about nine o'clock in the morning, he took the
note to a bank in Cawker City to sell it and have it
discounted, but the bank declined to purchase it. He kept it
in his possession all that day, and on the 9th day of July he
drove over to the town of Glen Elder, situated in the same
county, and there offered the note for sale and discount at
two banks, and they declined to purchase it. He returned to
Cawker City, and on the 10th day of July he endeavored to
dispose of it to other parties, who declined to purchase it
and on the night of the 10th day of July, 1909, he sent the
note and the application to the defendant Company, where it
arrived on the 12th day of July, 1909. He had also taken the
application of A. T. Boyer and Charles Boyer for insurance on
growing crops owned by them separately, and had taken their
notes in payment of the premiums thereon. He sent all three
of these notes and the applications at the time of sending
the application and note of plaintiff, and in his letter
informed the Company 'that he would stand for the
collection' of the notes; that they owned 680 acres of
very fine land in Jewell County, Kansas, but were in debt a
good deal, and that they had given a first lien on 165 acres
of as fine corn as could be seen in the county, and which was
tasseling out in fine shape.
"10.
The note, application and letter were received by the
secretary of the Company, who made no objection because the
application was not accompanied by the cash, and on the 12th
day of July, 1909, the policy of insurance, which is marked
Exhibit "A" and appears as such in the petition of
plaintiff, was issued to the plaintiff and the other policies
issued to A. T. Boyer and Charles Boyer.
"11.
The application of the plaintiff on which such policy was
issued is the one marked Exhibit "B" in
plaintiff's petition. A copy of the By-Laws was printed
on the policy so issued and forms a part of the contract
under which said policy was to be so issued.
"12.
That had said application and note been forwarded on the
night of the 7th or on the morning or night of the 8th of
July, which could have been done instead of on the 10th, they
would have been received by the Company and the policy would
have been issued to plaintiff before the destruction of his
crop of corn below mentioned. But, considering the critical
situation of the corn, the danger of hail from [in] July and
August, and the limited number of days the insurance was to
run, together with all the other circumstances in this case
the court finds that the said agent held said application an
unreasonable length of time, and on such account the
application was not passed upon by the Company until July 12
1909.
"13.
On the 11th day of July, at 3:30 o'clock, A. M., a
violent hailstorm swept over the country and totally
destroyed the crop of one hundred acres of corn described in
the policy so issued to the plaintiff.
"14.
The value of the crop of corn so destroyed was at least $
1200.
"15.
On the 12th day of July, 1909, the plaintiff made affidavit
of his loss, which he sent by United States mail to the
proper parties as designated in the policy of insurance, and
afterward on the 15th day of July, 1909, he made further and
formal proof of loss, as required by the policy of insurance
and deposited it in the United States mail, sending it by
registered letter to said Company, and within the time
required by the policy of insurance.
"16.
The Company has refused and, before the bringing of this
action refused, and still refuses to pay for the destruction
of said crop or any part thereof.
"17.
Section 15 of the By-Laws provided that:
"
'The application and policy and the By-Laws of this
Company now in force, or as hereafter enacted, constitute the
entire contract between the Company and its members, and no
agent is authorized to enter into any agreement which alters
said contract in any particular.'
"18.
While the Company did not expressly authorize the Agent Woody
to accept notes in payment for premiums, yet they notified
their agents, including Woody, that if they should find
difficulty in discounting notes taken, that the Company would
refer them to a bank that would, and it is apparent many such
notes were taken and in that way the Company encouraged its
agents to take notes in payment of premiums and this is why
Woody took the note payable to himself instead of the
Company.
"19.
The Company had cautioned the agent Woody, never to send
notes when they could be discounted.
"20.
The plaintiff believed the agent, Woody, had authority to
accept the note in payment of the premium and had no notice
to the contrary; save and except such, if any, as is imparted
by the matters contained in the application of the plaintiff,
and the policy issued to the plaintiff, and plaintiff had no
notice that there would be any attempt to discount or sell
the note before forwarding the application.
"21.
The policy issued to the plaintiff was so issued July 12,
1909, and for a term ending on the 15th day of September,
1909.
"22.
A bank in Waseca, Minnesota, in the same city wherein the
home...
