Viele v. Germania Insurance Co. Berwick Co. v. N. E. F. & M. Ins. Co., 52 Maine, 336; Post v. Etna Ins. Co., 43 Barb. 351; Sheldon v. Atlantic Ins. Co., 26 N. Y. 460. 9. and incidental VII. This brings us to inquire what powers may be exercised by the agent within the scope of his general implied authority. Under this general authority he powers. has power to conduct the business of insurance of his principals at the city of Davenport. This is the aggregation of all his powers, and he possesses implied authority to do all things proper and necessary in the prosecution of that business, subject of course to limitations imposed by his principals and known to those with whom he deals. These incidental powers may be numerous, and their enumeration is not necessary. Among others he has the power to assent to the increase of the risk, and to a change of occupancy of property insured, and to cancel policies on account of increase of risks or In the exercise of these powers he for other reason. any is guided by his own discretion, which it is presumed will be exercised for the best interests of his principals. He has, also, all the powers which by the usages of the business are properly and ordinarily exercised by agents engaged therein. Story on Agency, $$ 77, 106. It appears that insurance agents usually exercise supervision over the property insured by them, and this necessarily results from the character of the business and their authority to cancel policies on account of increase of risk. The agent is charged, by the terms of the policy on which this suit is based, with the power to determine whether the risk is increased. If he so determines, he may cancel the policy and put an end to the contract. This involves the necessity of examination of the condition of the insured property during the life of the policy, and constant watchfulness to protect the interest of the underwriters. If he determines that the risk is increased, such determination Viele v. Germania Insurance Co. is final, for it seems the assured has no appeal therefrom and no redress for loss that may be sustained thereby. Such being the great, and in some respects extraordinary, powers of the agent, it follows that he is clothed with the power to dispense with conditions and waive the effects of breaches thereof, in contracts of insurance made by him. These powers are necessary incidents of his general authority, and without their exercise he could not act to its full extent. If he can determine that the conditions of the contract have been broken, surely he can also determine that they have not been broken. If he can put an end to the contract because of the increase of the risk, and the consequent forfeiture, certainly he can waive that forfeiture. If, possessing such full authority to make the contract, determine that it is performed, and to put an end to it, he can not dispense with its conditions after it is executed, the rules of law controlling agents generally and all kinds of contracts, must be held not applicable to insurance policies and insurance agents.. These companies have no way of dealing with their customers and the public, except through their agents. They are incorporations existing under the laws of another State. Practically those powers can only be exercised by agents. They are inherent in the corporations, whose interest as well as fair dealing toward others (as it did in the case before us), may require their exercise. The agents, therefore, must be held to have full authority to dispense with the conditions of policies, after their execution, and to waive forfeitures for breaches thereof. As we have already intimated, the law, in its application to other kinds of contracts, and to agents transacting other kinds of business, fully sustains the doctrines we have announced. This may readily be illustrated by facts disclosed by the record. The owner of the property upon which the policy in question was issued was a non Viele v. Germania Insurance Co. resident of the State, and the business was transacted for him by an agent, who, it seems, exercised general powers in all matters pertaining to the property. Now, suppose this agent had executed a contract for the rebuilding of the property burned, or his principal had executed it, and it was delivered by the agent, blanks being filled by him under proper authority, with the name of the other contracting party, sums to be paid, etc. This contract contained many conditions, as we may suppose, for the benefit of the property owner, and the agent was authorized to assent in writing to the dispensation of certain of them, and the power to put an end to the contract in case of the failure of the other party to comply with its conditions. During the progress of the work, questions arose whether certain things done or omitted to be done by the builder, were in violation of the conditions of the contract. The agent, as to whose power not one word of limitation existed in the contract, or was otherwise known to the builder, asserts that the matters in question are not in violation of the contract, and treats it as complied with, or verbally assents to the dispensation of certain conditions. When the building is completed, in accordance with the contract as thus modified, the principal refuses to pay the sum agreed on, because of non-compliance on the part of the builder with the conditions thus waived by the agent. Upon no recognized rules of law could this defense be sustained, and we would have no difficulty in finding ample authorities in support of the doctrine that the waiver of forfeitures by reason of the breaches. of the conditions, and the dispensation of the conditions. by the agent, were binding on the principal. This supposed case is not distinguishable upon principle from the case disclosed by the record. The views above advanced are fully sustained by the more recent decisions of the courts. In the Peoria Fire Viele v. Germania Insurance Co. and Marine Ins. Co. v. Hall (12 Mich. 213) the knowledge of the agent when the policy was issued, that gun powder was kept on the premises insured, was held to be a waiver of a condition prohibiting the keeping of it without written permission. In Warner v. The Peoria Fire and Marine Ins. Co. (14 Wis. 319) the policy required notice to be given of additional insurance, and consent thereto indorsed on the policy. The agent indorsed a waiver of this condition as follows: "Other insurance permitted without notice until required." The court held this to be a sufficient waiver, and that the agent had authority to make it. In N. E. Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Schettler (38 Ill. 170) the agent, upon the receipt of additional premium, gave permission, indorsed on the policy, for the removal of the building and goods to another lot. In a suit upon the policy, the insurance company claimed, that the agent had no power to consent to the removal of the property. The court held, that the power will be presumed without proof. The following additional authorities support the doctrine we have above announced: Sanford v. Handy, 23 Wend. 260; Conover v. Mutual Ins. Co., 1 Comst. 290; Rowley v. Empire Ins. Co., 36 N. Y. 550; Plumb v. Cattaraugus Ins. Co., 18 id. 392; Sheldon v. Atlantic Fire and Mutual Ins. Co., 26 id. 465. The cases cited in prior pages in support of the positions that there may be a waiver of a breach of the conditions of a policy, and that such waiver may be by parol or presumed from the acts of the parties, sustain the point here made; the waiver in those cases being generally, if not all, made by agents. It is not to be disguised, that, upon this question, there is very great conflict of authorities, some cases restricting the power of the agents to the most narrow limits of the express terms of their appointments, and circumscribing Viele v. Germania Insurance Co. it strictly by the restrictions imposed by the principals, the insurance companies. But the more recent cases support the contrary view, and are in consonance with the doctrines we have attempted to maintain in this opinion. As an illustration of the progress of the authorities upon this question, it may be mentioned, that Rowley v. The Empire Ins. Co., above cited, which was decided in 1867, overrules five prior cases adjudged in the courts of New York, and is supported by only one older case in the reports of that State, viz., Plumb v. The Cattaraugus Ins. Co., 18 N. Y. 392. These later decisions are in harmony with reason and sound public policy, in view of the manner of conducting the business of insurance through a system of agencies far distant from the place of business. of the corporations. While it is true that these companies transact business only through their agents at distant points, it is also true, that much of their business is acquired through the diligence, skill and capacity of these agents, and that parties effecting insurance rely in a great measure upon the representations made by them as to the rights and obligations of the respective parties to the policies, and are controlled in the care of the insured property by their directions. The acts of these agents, in all matters pertaining to the proper business they are appointed to transact, should bind their principals, unless contrary to restrictions of their powers, brought to the knowledge of those with whom they deal. It is argued, that, inasmuch as by the restrictions imposed on the power of the agent by custom, as well as by the rules of the company, he can make no change in the printed conditions of the policy, therefore he had no authority to waive a forfeiture of such terms, or dispense with their performance. Without determining whether this could be done by agreement at the |