wealth    Ins.   Co.  v.  Sennett,  41  Pa.  St.         11.  Home  Ins.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Myer,  93

161;  Rokes  V.  Amazon  Ins.  Co.,  51  Md.  111.  271;  Byrne  v.  Rising  Sun  Ins.  Co.,

512;    Bennett  v.  Maryland   Ins.  Co.,  14  20  Ind.  103.     It  is  held   that  the  agent

Blatchf.  (C.  Cl.)  422.  may  waive  the  requirement  with  regard

6.  New  Orleans  Ins.  Asso.  v.  Mat-  to  the  time  and  manner  of  giving  notice
thews  (Miss.).  4  So.  Rep.  62;  Rokes  v.  and  making  proof.  Eastern  R.  v.  Relief
Amazon  Ins.  Co.,  51  Md.  512;  Blake  v.  Fire  Ins.  Co.,  105  Mass.  570;  Security
Exchange  Mut.  Ins.  Co.,  12  Gray  (Mass.),  Ins.  Co.  v.  Fay.  22  Mich.  467:  Dohn  v.
265;  Pitney  v.  Glens  Falls  Ins.  Co.,  61  Farmers',  etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  5  Lans.  (N.  Y.)
Barb.  (N.  Y.)  335.  275;  Pennell  v.  Lamar  Ins.  Co.,  73  111.
7.  Rokes  V.  Amazon  Ins.  Co.,  51  Md.  303;  Georgia  Home  Ins.  Co.  v.  Kinnier.
512.  28  Gratt.  (Va.)  88;  Edgerly  i'.  Farmers'

8.  Cornell  v.  Leroy,  9  Wend.   (N.  Y.)     Ins.  Co.,  48  Iowa,  644.
163;    Hicks  z/.  Empire   Ins.   Co.,  6  Mo.  Delivery  of  proof  to  the  local  agent  and

App.  254,  retention  by  him  without  objection  is  a

9.  Commercial  Union  Assur.  Co.  v.  waiver,  although  the  policy  provides  that
State  (Ind.),   15  N.  E.  Rep.  518;  Frank-  the  proofs  shall  be  furnished  at  the  home

1054


Lon:  A^jutnunt.
FIRE  INSURANCE.
Waiver  and  Estoppel.
