CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF THE STATE OF INDIANA, AT INDIANAPOLIS, MAY TERM, 1882, IN THE SIXTY-SIXTH 81 297 129 99 81 297 150 676 No. 10,178. BOARD OF STATE-HOUSE COMMISSIONERS v. WHITTAKER. STATE-HOUSE.-Statute Construed.-The new State-House is, by the act of 1877 (Acts 1877, Spec. Sess., p. 68), required not to cost for its construction more than $2,000,000, but this does not include incidental expenses, such as salaries, travelling expenses of the board and rents; and the board has authority to expend that sum for construction alone. From the Marion Circuit Court. D. P. Baldwin, Attorney General, for appellant. WORDEN, C. J.-This was a complaint by the appellee against the appellants, to enjoin the latter from expending more than the sum of $2,000,000 in the construction of the new State-House, including all incidental expenses. The complaint charges, among other things, that the defendants" are about to make certain changes, alterations and modifications in the construction of said State-House, which will increase the cost of the same beyond the said $2,000,000 Board of State-House Commissioners v. Whittaker. limit, provided the said defendants are required to pay out of said $2,000,000 all incidental expenses connected with the erection and construction of said State-House building, such as the architect's salary, the superintendent's salary, the travelling expenses of the board, etc.; which items of expense your petitioner respectfully contends said commissioners are obliged to pay out of said $2,000,000 appropriation; that said contemplated changes, alterations and modifications consist in part in the substitution of marble wainscoting for wainscoting of Indiana wood and stone, as originally arranged and contracted for, at an additional cost of $50,000; that the changing of the main staircases in said State-House building, from iron to marble, will increase the cost of the same at least $20,000; that the said defendants have in contemplation, and are about to make, a number of other changes in the construction of said building, which, in connection with the changes already detailed herein, and under the construction of said law contended for by this petitioner, will materially increase the cost of said State-House building beyond the said $2,000,000 limit. Your petitioner further charges that said defendants, unless restrained by the order of this court, will proceed to make the above indicated changes, alterations and modifications," etc. The defendants answered, "That the alleged changes, together with the original contract price of the new State-House, exclusive of incidental expenses, will not exceed $2,000,000; but if the incidental charges (expenses), such as the salaries of the board, their travelling expenses, and other incidental expenses named in the plaintiff's complaint, are taken from the $2,000,000, the total cost will exceed $2,000,000, and said changes and improvements can not be made. Wherefore," etc. A demurrer for want of sufficient facts was sustained to this answer, and there was judgment enjoining the defendants from expending more than two million dollars in the construction of the building, including salaries, travelling ex Board of State-House Commissioners r. Whittaker. penses, commissions of architects, and every other expense named in the plaintiff's complaint connected with the building of said new State-House. We are of opinion that the decision below was wrong, and based upon a wrong construction of the statute providing for the erection of a State-House. Acts 1877, Spec. Sess., p. 68. In the case of Williams v. Mansur, 70 Ind. 41, we held that the rent of a building for the use of some of the officers of State, the State-House commissioners being required to furnish the building for the use of such officers, was payable out of the fund designated the "New State-House Fund;" but that the sum so paid constituted no part of the $2,000,000 which might be expended in the construction of the new State-House. There is, however, the following dictum in that case, which was not necessary to the decision of the cause and upon which we may suppose the court below acted. We said: "The sum of $2,000,000 was doubtless intended to cover everything pertaining to the construction of the new State-House, including salaries of commissioners, secretary to the board, etc." This proposition was unadvisedly embodied in the opinion with a view to point out a distinction between the rent then in question, and expenses more nearly connected with the construction of the building, the question concerning the rent being the only one involved in the case. Upon a more careful consideration of the various provisions of the statute, we are of opinion that it was the legislative intention, that the sum of $2,000,000 might be expended in the construction of the new State-House; and that, in addition thereto, all incidental expenses, such as salaries and travelling expenses of the board, compensation of architect, secretary and superintendent, rents, etc., may be paid out of the fund denominated the "New State-House Fund," but that these expenses are not to be deducted from the $2,000,000 which may be expended in what may be strictly called the construction of the building. 81 300 124 512 125 86 Willcuts v. The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company. The judgment below is reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. No. 8649. WILLCUTS v. THE NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSUR- DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE.-Practice.-A demurrer to the evidence admits SAME.-Effect of.-The effect of a demurrer to the evidence is to concede the truth of all the facts of which there is any evidence against the demurring party, and to prevent him from insisting upon the benefit of evidence in his favor, if there is a conflict in the evidence. LIFE INSURANCE.-Provision Forfeiting Policy for Non-Payment of Premium.— SAME.-Right to Recover Proportionate Part of Insurance on Partial Payment of SAME.-Policy. - Conditions.- Covenants.-Where there is a full and valid Willcuts v. The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company. SAME.-Modification of Policy by New Parol Contract.-A. policy may be modified by a new and distinct parol contract. SAME.-Member of Mutual Insurance Company.-The fact that the insured becomes a member of a mutual life insurance company does not prevent a lapse of his policy and a termination of liability upon it by reason of his failure to perform the conditions required by the terms of the policy to keep it in force. The stipulations of the contract and its construction are none the less binding, because made between the corporation and a member. SAME.-Waiver of Condition in Policy.- Power of General Agent.-A general agent of a foreign insurance company, possessing competent authority, may waive the condition in the policy that the premium should be paid in money. A mere local agent could not. (As to what will constitute such waiver see opinion p. 309.) SAME.-Payment of Part Premium.-An insured member of a mutual life insurance company is not entitled to a proportionate part of the amount of his policy of insurance, when only a part of the premium is paid, in contravention of the conditions of the policy, that if not paid on a certain day it should cease. SAME-Tender of Premium.-An insurance company, by demanding more than it is entitled to receive, and notifying the insured that nothing but a compliance therewith will be deemed performance, will excuse the insured from tendering the premium; but a notice requesting payment of a premium, calling attention to the conditions of the policy, etc., can not be construed as intended to mean that the company repudiated an agreement to receive as part payment of the premium a bill for services of the insured, and excuse him from the payment of the balance of the premium, in accordance with the terms of the policy. SAME.-Construction of Policy.-Where parties have, by their own acts under the policy, placed a construction upon a policy of insurance, the courts will carry that construction into effect. From the Grant Circuit Court. F. M. Finch, J. A. Finch, G. W. Harvey, L. D. Baldwin and Baldwin, for appellant. T. A. Hendricks, C. Baker, A. W. Hendricks, O. B. Hord, I. Van Devanter and J. W. Lacey, for appellee. ELLIOTT, J.-The complaint of the appellant is in three paragraphs. The first alleges that the appellee issued a policy of insurance upon the life of Leander E. Willcuts, the appellant's husband; that, at and prior to the time the policy was issued, the insured was appellee's examining physician for |