160 INJURING AND KILLING ANIMALS. 



be killed.^"* And notice need not be sent of a short passing 

 sickness which did not recur for many weeks.^"^ But 

 where immediate notice by telegram is required, the furnish- 

 ing of blanks for proof of loss is not a waiver of the condi- 

 tion.2i» 



A provision in the constitution of the company that the in- 

 cumbering of the insured animals by a mortgage without the 

 company's consent shall cause forfeiture of the certificate does 

 not operate ipso facto to annul the policy, but confers upon the . 

 company the right to elect to declare it void, which right may 

 be waived.^^^ 



Where a company are authorized by statute to insure live 

 stock, etc., as farm property, but by their by-laws are not al- 

 lowed to insure village property within one hundred feet of 

 other buildings, they w^re held not liable for live stock de- 

 stroyed by fire while in the barn of a village hotel that stood 

 within one hundred feet of other buildings.^^^ But where 

 live stock was insured "in the places herein set forth and not 

 elsewhere," and a mare which was at the time in a certain barn 

 had been removed to another two hundred feet distant, where 

 she was killed by lightning, it was held that the words de- 

 fining the location were descriptive only, and not a stipulation 

 that it should remain unchanged, and that the company were 

 hable.*^* So, a description of a horse in a policy as "con- 

 tained in assured's barn" is not a promissory contract or war- 

 ranty that the horse is to be kept all the time in the barn and 



"^ Smith V. People's Mut. L. S. Ins. Co., 173 Pa. St. 15. But see III. 

 Live-Stock Ins. Co. v. Kirkpatrick, 61 111. App. 74. 



A provision requiring fifteen hours' notice is valid: Swain v. Security 

 Live-Stock Ins. Co., 165 Mass. 321. 



'"'' Kells V. Northwestern Live-Stock Ins. Co., 64 Minn. 390. 



'"Alston V. Northwestern Live-Stock Ins. Co. (Kan. App.), 53 Pac. 

 Rep. 784, where the condition was held to be a material one. 



"^ Lobee v. Standard Live-Stock Ins. Co., 12 Misc. (N. Y.) 449. 



"" Wildey v. Farmers' Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 52 Mich. 446. 



^" De Graff v. Queen Ins. Co., 38 Minn. 501. 



And see Peterson v. Miss. Vail. Ins. Co., 24 la. 494; Mills v. Farmers' 

 Ins. Co., 37 id. 400. 



