Argument for Defendant in Error. and by suppressing the answers actually given, and by concealing from the assured what he had written in the application, and thereby induced him to sign it without knowing what it contained, then the plaintiff was not estopped to recover. The court also charged that if the assured ascertained before the contract was consummated, that is, before the policy was .delivered to him and the first premium paid, that the agent had committed a fraud upon him and upon the company, it was his duty to stop and decline to go any further with the transaction; but if he did not discover this before the policy was delivered and the first premium paid, he was not called upon afterwards to take any steps for the cancellation of the contract. To this the defendant excepted. The plaintiff obtained a verdict for the full amount of the insurance money with interest, upon which judgment was rendered. Mr. Frederick N. Judson, with whom was Mr. John H. Overall, for plaintiff in error. Mr. George D. Reynolds for defendant in error. I. The contract of insurance in this case is a Missouri contract and to be determined by the laws of that State. (a.) The cause of action undoubtedly accrued in Missouri, where the death occurred. Rippstein v. St. Louis Mutual Life Insurance Co., 57 Missouri, 86. (b.) As the New York Life Insurance Company could only do business in Missouri on terms prescribed by the laws of Missouri, Paul v. State of Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, when it issued policies or did business in that State, it subjected itself to the laws thereof, and its contracts of insurance, made under the license granted by the State to do business therein, are to be interpreted according to the laws of Missouri. Its policies, solicited by its agents in Missouri, are entered into and accepted by the citizens of Missouri, with a view to the local law, and are to be interpreted thereunder. Pritchard v. Norton, 106 U. S. 124; Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 519; Taylor v. Holmes, 14 Fed. Rep. 505. So held uniformly by United States courts in Missouri since the passage of the act of March 23, 1874, Rev. Stat. Missouri, 1879, Argument for Defendant in Error. §§ 5976, 5977. White v. Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Co., 4. Dillon, 177; Fletcher v. New York Life Insurance Co., 13 Fed. Rep. 526. See also Holmes v. Charter Oak Life Insurance Co., 131 Mass. 64. It follows that §§ 5976, 5977 Rev. Stat. Missouri apply to this contract, and under them it is to be noted: (1) that the doctrine of warranty as understood in insurance contracts, is done away with, and misrepresentation is not to be deemed material, unless the matter misrepresented actually contributed to the loss, which is to be determined by the jury, see § 5976; nor 2d, shall such defence be available, unless the defendant at or before the trial, tenders or returns the premiums received. See § 5977. See White v. Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. supra. II. The main question presented by the case is, whether the clause in the application and in the policy, to the effect that no statements, representations or information made or given by or to the person soliciting or taking the application, or to any person, shall be binding on the company, or in any manner affect its rights, unless such statements, etc., be reduced to writing and presented to the officers of the company at the home office, in the application referred to, is such a notice to the applicant, or to the insured, of the limitation of the powers of the soliciting agent, as exempts the company from responsibility and liability on the policy, when the solicitor is proved to have fraudulently inserted wrong answers and concealed the fact that he had done so from the applicant. As to this, it is respectfully submitted, that this clause is nothing more than an attempt to make the solicitor the agent of the applicant, instead of the agent of the insurer, and that it falls within the principle of the cases of Ins. Co. v. Wilkinson, 13 Wall. 222; Ins. Co. v. Mahone, 21 Wall. 152; New Jersey Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Baker, 94 U. S. 610. See also note to Carpenter v. Washington Insurance Co.,2 American Lead. Cas., 5th ed., 919; Bliss on Life Ins., 2d ed., §§ 76-81; May on Insurance, 2d ed., §§ 136-144, 497-499. III. Roselein continued, as agent of the company to receive premiums, knowing the statements in the application to be false. That estops his principal. Wing v. Hawey, 27 Eng. Opinion of the Court. Law & Eq., 140; Ins. Co. v. McCain, 96 U. S. 84; Commercial Ins. Co. v. Ives, 56 Ill. 402; Etna Ins. Co. v. McGuire, 51 Ill. 342. IV. Counsel for plaintiff contend that because the effect of false statements in the application is avoided, and a recovery had notwithstanding their insertion, therefore the recovery must be on a new and different contract. That this is not so, see Ins. Co. v. Wilkinson, 13 Wall, 222, and especially the brief of counsel, 226-229. ́ Mr. Reynolds then pointed out the distinctions between the Mahone case supra, Ryan v. World Mut. Life Ins. Co., 41 Conn. 168, and Loehner v. Home Mutual Ins. Co., 17 Missouri, 247, and contended that the latter case was no longer law in Missouri, citing Horwitz v. Equity Mutual Ins. Co., 40 Missouri, 557; Franklin v. Atlantic Fire Ins. Co., 42 Missouri, 456; Combs v. Hannibal Savings & Ins. Co., 43 Missouri, 148; Hayward v. National Ins. Co., 52 Missouri, 181, MR. JUSTICE FIELD, after stating the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court. It is conceded that the statements and representations contained in the answers, as written, of the assured to the questions propounded to him in his application, respecting his past and present health, were material to the risk to be assumed by the company, and that the insurance was made upon the faith of them, and upon his agreement accompanying them that, if they were false in any respect, the policy to be issued upon them should be void. It is sought to meet and overcome the force of this conceded fact by proof that he never made the statements and representations to which his name is signed; that he truthfully answered those questions; that false answers written by an agent of the company were inserted in place of those actually given, and were forwarded with the application to the home office; and it is contended that, such proof being made, the plaintiff is not estopped from recovering. But on the assumption that the fact as to the answers was as stated, and that no further obligation rested upon the assured in connection with the policy, it is not easy to perceive how the com Opinion of the Court. pany can be precluded from setting up their falsity, or how any rights upon the policy ever accrued to him. It is, of course, not necessary to argue that the agent had no authority from the company to falsify the answers, or that the assured could acquire no right by virtue of his falsified answers. Both he and the company were deceived by the fraudulent conduct of the agent. The assured was placed in the position of making false representations in order to secure a valuable contract which, upon a truthful report of his condition, could not have been obtained. By them the company was imposed upon and induced to enter into the contract. In such a case, assuming that both parties acted in good faith, justice would require that the contract be cancelled and the premiums returned. As the present action is not for such a cancellation, the only recovery which the plaintiff could properly have upon the facts he asserts, taken in connection with the limitation upon the powers of the agent, is for the amount of the premiums paid, and to that only would he be entitled by virtue of the statute of Missouri. But the case as presented by the record is by no means as favorable to him as we have assumed. It was his duty to read the application he signed. He knew that upon it the policy would be issued, if issued at all. It would introduce great uncertainty in all business transactions, if a party making written proposals for a contract, with representations to induce its execution, should be allowed to show, after it had been obtained, that he did not know the contents of his proposals, and to enforce it, notwithstanding their falsity as to matters essential to its obligation and validity. Contracts could not be made, or business fairly conducted, if such a rule should prevail; and there is no reason why it should be applied merely to contracts of insurance. There is nothing in their nature which distinguishes them in this particular from others. But here the right is asserted to prove not only that the assured did not make the statements contained in his answers, but that he never read the application, and to recover upon a contract obtained by representations admitted to be false, just as though they were true. If he had read even the printed lines of his VOL. CXVII-34 Opinion of the Court. application, he would have seen that it stipulated that the rights of the company could in no respect be affected by his verbal statements, or by those of its agents, unless the same were reduced to writing and forwarded with his application to the home office. The company, like any other principal, could limit the authority of its agents, and thus bind all parties dealing with them with knowledge of the limitation. It must be presumed that he read the application, and was cognizant of the limitations therein expressed. In Globe Insurance Co. v. Wolf, 95 U. S. 329, the policy declared that the agents of the company were not authorized to waive forfeitures, and this court held that effect must be given to the provision, except so far as the subsequent acts of the company permitted it to be disregarded. In Insurance Co. v. Norton, 96 U. S. 240, the policy contained an express declaration that the agents of the company were not authorized to make, alter, or abrogate contracts, or waive forfeitures, and this court held that the company could have insisted upon those terms had it so chosen. In Loehner v. Home Mutual Insurance Co., the Supreme Court of Missouri passed upon this point. 17 Missouri, 247, 256. The charter of that company provided that, if the assured failed to state in his application, which was made a part of the policy, any encumbrance that existed on the insured premises, his policy should be void. There was also endorsed on the policy a memorandum that the company would not be bound by any statement of the agent unless contained in the application. The answer to the action on the policy set up that the application did not truly state the encumbrances. A small encumbrance upon the premises was not stated, and on the trial evidence was offered that its existence was made known to the agent of the company at the time of the application, but that he refused to write it down, saying that the amount was too trifling. The evidence was excluded, and the Supreme Court sustained the ruling, holding that the objection that the encumbrance was not stated could not be obviated in that way. "Independently of the statute of the State," said the court," which required the encumbrance to be expressed in |