Are  the  principles  announced  available  to  appel-
lant I      When    appellant   forwarded    the    policy    to
appellee  ^s  agent  by  mail  he  suggested  condi-

6.  tions  that  might  prevent' the  rewriting  of  the
insurance,  and  in  this  respect  he  became  the

moving  party.  Up  to  this  time  he  had  not  paid  the
premium,  and  by  his  own  act  he  had  parted  with  the
physical  possession  of  the  policy,  the  tangible  evi-
dence of  his  contract  of  insurance.  The  letter  admon-
ished appellee  *s  agent  not  to  rewrite  the  insurance
unless  he  was  sure  that  the  conditions  mentioned
would  not  invalidate  the  same,  if  rewritten.  Did  it
become  the  duty  of  appellee  ^s  agent,  in  order  to
escape  liability  that  might  arise  in  the  future,  as  it
did,  to  notify  appellant  that  it  had  concluded  not  to


NOVEMBER  TERM,  1917.  279

Tork,  Rec.,  v.  Sun  Ins.  Go. — 66  Ind.  App.  269.
rewrite  the  insurance,  by  reason  of  the  information
contained  in  the  letter,  or  would  appellant  be  charge-
able with  such  notice  after  the  lapse  of  a  reasonable
length  of  time?  Appellant's  letter  discloses  that  he
was  apprehensive  of  the  fact  that  the  insurer  would
not  rewrite  the  insurance  by  reason  of  the  informa-
tion he  conveyed  to  appellee's  agent,  and  which  he
evidently  deemed  a  sufficient  cause  for  the  insurer
refusing  to  do  so.  With  this  information  before  him,
he  was  chargeable  with  notice  after  the  lapse  of  a
reasonable  length  of  time  that  the  insurer  acted  upon
the  information  conveyed  to  it  and  refused  to  rewrite
the  policy.
