The case of Kettlewell v. Refuge Assurance Company, which deals with the effect of unauthorized representations by assurance agents, and has, by reason of its importance, attracted considerable attention, has already been referred to in these Notes in connection with its appearance before the Divisional Court (J.I.A., xli, 574). The case has since been heard on appeal by the Court of Appeal, and it may be convenient briefly to recapitulate the facts. The plaintiff effected a policy on the life of one James Kettlewell, with the defendants. After paying the premiums for a year, she proposed to allow the policy to lapse, but on the representations of the defendants' district superintendent and agent, that if she continued to pay premiums until the expiration of five years from the date of policy she would be entitled to a free policy, she continued to pay the premiums until the end of these five years, when she claimed the free policy. The representations so made by the defendants' agents were untrue to their knowledge, and were made without the authority of the defendants, and in these circumstances the latter refused to grant the free policy. The plaintiff then brought an action to recover back the premiums paid by her on the faith of these representations. It was given in evidence for the assurance company that their agents were employed only for the purpose of procuring proposals for policies, and that they had no authority to make any contract for the defendants. The County Court judge entered judgment for the plaintiff for the amount of premiums paid since the date when the false representations were made, and on appeal, the Divisional Court upheld this decision, holding that the fact that the defendants had been at risk during the four years covered by these premiums did not disentitle the plaintiff to rescind the contract of insurance and recover back the premiums paid.