[292] Groll v. Tower, 85 Mo., 249.
[293] Thompson v. Ish, 99 Mo., 160, distinguishes the New York statute from the Missouri statute; but seems to misinterpret Heuston v. Simpson, 115 Ind., 62, which does not hold that representatives cannot waive, but that they can invoke protection.
[294] State v. Depoister, 25 Pac. Rep., 1000.
[295] Johnson v. Johnson, 14 Wend., 636; Babcock v. People, 15 Hun, 347; Valensin v. Valensin, 14 Pac. Rep., 87 (Supr. Ct. Cal., 1887); cf. In re Hannah, 11 N. Y. St. Rep., 807.
[296] Penn Mut. L. I. Co. v. Wiler, 100 Ind., 92; Allen v. Pub. Adm., 1 Bradf., 221; Edington v. Mut. L. I. Co., 67 N. Y., 185; see Westover v. Ætna L. I. Co., 99 N. Y., 56. Breisenmeister v. Supr. Lodge, etc., 45 N. W. Rep., 977 (Supr. Ct. Mich., 1890).
[297] Penn Mut. L. I. Co. v. Wiler, 100 Ind., 92.
[298] Harris v. Rupel, 14 Ind., 209. See also Carthage T. Co. v. Andrews. 1 N. E. Rep., 364.
[299] Morris v. Morris, 119 Ind., 341.
[300] Scripps v. Foster, 41 Mich., 742.
[301] Mason v. Libbey, 2 Abb. N. C., 137; Mott v. Consumers’ Ice Co., 2 Abb. N. C., 143.