
    Ætna Live Stock Ins. Co. vs. Olmstead.
    Insurance company bound, notwithstanding the answer of the assured to one of the questions in the application was not entirely correct, when the real facts were known to the agent at the time of receiving the application.
    Error to Wayne Circuit
   Cooley, J.

Olmstead recovered judgment upon a policy of insurance, by which the company insured him against loss by fire on his house and furniture and his hotel barn, in the village of Lyons. A loss having occurred, the company refused to pay on the ground ot a breach of warranty, which by the terms of the policy rendered it void. By the policy it was provided that “ if an application, survey, plan or description of the property, herein insured, is referred to in this policy, such application, survey, plan or description shall he considered a part of this policy and a warranty by the insured.” The ninth question to the in-cured, ran as follows:

“ 9. Incumbrance; if any, state the amount. Is there any insurance by the mortgagees ? State the amount.”
«9. No.”

The breach of warranty relied upon was, that-two mortgages existed upon the property at the time of the application; but it was shown that the fact was fully made known to the agent of the company at that time, as well as the fact that there was no insurance by the mortgagees. Held-, that the company was bound by the contract of its agent, and the judgment below was affirmed.  