Afterward, on March 1, 1898, in the case of Tisdell v. New Hampshire Fire Insurance Company, 155 N.Y. 163, 49 N.E. 664, 40 L. R. A. 765 (see, also, Id., 11 Misc. Rep. 20, 32 N.Y. Supp. 166), it was again held that a tender was a condition precedent to the cancellation of such a policy — the opinion being delivered by Mr. Justice Bartlett, concurred in by Justices Haight, Martin, and Vann, Chief Justice Parker and Mr. Justice O'Brien dissenting, and Mr. Justice Gray being absent. Again, in the case of Buckley v. Insurance Co., 188 N.Y. 399, 81 N.E. 165, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 889 (see, also, Id., 112 App. Div. 451, 98 N Y Supp. 622), the Court of Appeals, following the Nitsch and Tisdell Cases, said: "It is a question of vital importance to the insurer and the insured as to the precise meaning of the cancellation clause in the standard policy.

Home Ins. Co. v. Adler, supra; Globe Rutgers F. I. Co. v. Eureka Sawmill Co., supra; 13 C.J. 725. Where insurance policy is issued and credit extended to insured by agent, the premium becomes a debt due by insured and amounts to such payment as that the company cannot cancel the policy. Buckley v. Citizens' Ins. Co., 188 N.Y. 399, 81 N.E. 165, 13 L.R.A.(N.S.) 889; Insurance Companies v. Raden, 87 Ala. 311, 5 So. 876, 13 Am St. Rep. 36; Farmers' Mut. Ins. Ass'n v. Tankersley, 13 Ala. App. 524, 69 So. 410, 411. SAMFORD, Judge.