INSUBANCE ON LIVE-STOCK. 159 



by the terms of the policy, is relieved from liability where the 

 death of the animal is caused by the negligence or fault of the 

 policy-holder or his employees.^"' Therefore, where an in- 

 sured animal dies as the result of striking and abuse, or over- 

 work, the amount cannot be recovered.^"* And where a 

 policy insuring one against loss for the death of a horse by 

 "disease or accident" provided that he should use all care for 

 the health and preservation of the horse and in case of sick- 

 ness promptly summon the best veterinarian accessible or, 

 if none could be had, provide the best attention, and that its 

 benefits should not extend to any fatal injury which occurred 

 through his connivance, sufferance or act, it was held that 

 where the horse about two hours before the policy expired 

 had been intentionally killed not because it was in pain, but 

 because it could not recover and the claim of the assured 

 could not otherwise be presented, the company was not liable, 

 although the killing was by the advice of a veterinarian sent 

 by them to treat the horse, and the president had directed the 

 plaintiff to follow such veterinarian's instruction as to the 

 treatment.''*''' A requirement in a policy of written notice 

 within twenty-four hours of the animal's disorder is waived 

 where, upon receipt of a verbal notice, the company sends its 

 surgeon to examine the animal and he eventually orders it to 



"" Beach Ins. § 229. 



A law authorizing the formation of companies "for the purpose of 

 insuring the lives of domestic animals, upon the co-operative or assess- 

 ment plan of insurance," includes loss by fire of animals insured: O'Grady 

 V. N. Y. Mut. Live-Stock Ins. Co., 16 N. Y. App. Div. 567. 



Where an animal may not be insured for more than half its cash value 

 this is an admission by the company, knowing the property, of the proper 

 ratio between the value and the sum insured: 111. Live-Stock Ins. Co. 

 V. Koehler, 58 111. App. 557. 



™West Horse and Cattle Ins. Co. v. O'Neill, 21 Neb. 548; Same v. 

 Timm, 23 id. 526. 



^°' Tripp V. Northwestern Live-Stock Ins. Co., 91 la. 278. The observ- 

 ance of such a condition need not be proved in an action on the policy 

 in the first instance: it is matter of defence: Johnston v. Northwestern 

 Live-Stock Ins. Co., 94 Wis. 117. 



