Cited by

Seavey, 244 Minn. at 245-46 , d at 898 (quoting Mee v. Bankers’ Life Association, 69 Minn. 210, 217 , ).

Not wishing to place the decision exclusively upon Minn. Const. art. 4, §§ 33 and 34, he said ( 69 Minn. 210 , ): “* * * I am of the opinion that, even if these sections had never been adopted, the act in question would have been invalid as ‘class legislation,’ because repugnant to section 2, art. 1, of the constitution, which declares that ‘no member of this state shall be * * * deprived of any of the rights or

Co. 251 Minn. 130 , 87 N. W. (2d) 36 ; Mee v. Bankers’ Life Assn. 69 Minn. 210 , ; Baughman v. Niagara Fire Ins.

Co. 166 Minn. 100 , ; Mee v. Bankers’ Life Assn. 69 Minn. 210 , .

Mee v. Bankers’ L. Assn. 69 Minn. 210 , ; Parsons, Rich & Co. v. Lane, 97 Minn. 98 , , 4 L.R.A.(N.S.)

Mee v. Bankers’ L. Assn. 69 Minn. 210 , ; Bowman v. Surety Fund L. Ins.

163 Minn. 203 , ; Mee v. Bankers’ L. Assn. 69 Minn. 210 , .

It will not be necessary to cite all, but the following are fairly illustrative: Mee v. Bankers’ L. Assn. 69 Minn. 210 , ; Sauerwein v. Grand Lodge, 121 Minn. 229 , ; Kozlak v. Polish Nat.

The plaintiff furnished them and in doing so was put to some trouble,” citing Mee v. Bankers L. Assn. 69 Minn. 210, 217 , , and quoting with approval therefrom the following: “A waiver may be created by acts, conduct or declarations insufficient to create a technical estoppel.

Particularly relevant here is the language of this court in Mee v. Bankers L. Assn. 69 Minn. 210, 218 , , 77: “It [the insurance company] could not insist upon a forfeiture, and at the same time, by word or deed, treat the contract as still in force.

Co. 123 Minn. 325, 328 , ; or, as was said in Mee v. Bankers Life Assn. 69 Minn. 210, 211 , : “If in negotiations * * * after knowledge of a ground of forfeiture * * * an association recognizes the continued validity of the certificate [of insurance], or does acts based thereon, the forfeiture is, as a matter of law, Avaived.” But in this case everything done by or on behalf of defendant

1144 ; Mee v. Bankers Life Assn. 69 Minn. 210 , 72 N.W.

In each of those cases the principle on which respondents stand, and clearly stated in Mee v. Bankers L. Assn. of Minn. 69 Minn. 210 , , is recognized, where it is said: “A waiver may be created by acts, conduct or declarations insufficient to create a technical estoppel.

Mee v. Banker’s Life Assn. 69 Minn. 210 , ; Parsons, Rich & Co. v. Lane, 97 Minn. 98, 106 , , 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 231, 7 Ann. Cas.

In Mee v. Bankers Life Assn. of Minn. 69 Minn. 210 , , it was said: “A waiver may be created by acts, conduct or declarations insufficient to create a technical estoppel.

Mee v. Bankers’ Life Assn. 69 Minn. 210 , .

Mee v. Bankers’ Life Assn. of Minn. 69 Minn. 210 , ; Mueller v. Grand Grove U. A. O. D. 69 Minn. 236 , ; 2 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

Mee v. Bankers Life Assn. 69 Minn. 210 , , and eases there cited.

538 , ; Parsons, Rich & Co. v. Lane, 97 Minn. 98 , ; Mee v. Bankers’ Life Assn., 69 Minn. 210 , ; Mueller v. Grand Grove U. A. O. D., 69 Minn. 236 , .

This court has always recognized the distinction between waiver and estoppel, and holds that a waiver need not be based either upon a new agreement or an estoppel., Thus in Mee v. Bankers’ Life Assn., 69 Minn. 210 , , it was said: “The law seems to be well settled, and has frequently been acted upon, that if, in negotiations or transactions with the assured after knowledge of the forfeiture, the insurer recognizes the continued validity of the policy or does acts based thereon, the forfeiture is

In Mee v. Bankers’ Life Assn., 69 Minn. 210 , , it appeared that the insured clearly recognized the contract as in force after it had full knowledge of all the facts.

Upon these facts appellant claims to be entitled to recover, upon the authority of Mee v. Bankers L. Assn., 69 Minn. 210 , , and Mueller v. Grand Grove U. A. O. D., 69 Minn. 236 , .