A similar result has been reached in Mississippi where the statute required "delivery" of the application, rather than "attachment." Walker v. Acacia Mutual Life Ins. Co., 178 Miss. 395, 173 So. 453 (1937). In states such as Louisiana and Ohio, where the statutes provided, respectively, for attachment of "the application or any other document" and for return to the insured of "a full and complete copy of each application or other document held by it which is intended in any manner to affect the force or validity of such policy", the opposite result has been reached in reliance on the statutory reference to "any other document."

The court apparently acted upon the theory that inasmuch as the application for reinstatement had not been attached to the policy of insurance or a copy thereof had not been shown to have been transmitted to the insured, same was inadmissible in evidence. See Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Scott, 160 Miss. 537, 134 So. 159; Walker v. Acacia Mutual Life Ins. Co., 178 Miss. 395, 173 So. 453. The court, furthermore, seems to have proceeded upon the theory that inasmuch as it was not shown that the original application for insurance had been attached to the original policy as required by the statutes of Mississippi, that no evidence could be admitted as to the condition of health of the insured at and prior to the date of issuance of the policy.

The weight of authority is to the effect that, where the governing statute and policy provisions in accordance therewith provide that the application shall be attached to the policy "when issued," or equivalent language, and where the reinstatement of a life insurance policy under the circumstances here is the continuance of the original policy and not the issuance of a new one, an application for reinstatement thereof is not required to be attached to or endorsed on the policy in order to make available as a defense to the insurer (at least within the contestable period) misrepresentations of the insured therein concerning his insurability. New York L. Ins. Co. v. Buchberg, 249 Mich. 317, 228 N.W. 770, 67 A.L.R. 1483; De Valpine v. New York L. Ins. Co. (Mo.App.) 105 S.W.2d 977; Duncan v. Penn Mut. L. Ins. Co. 17 Tenn. App. 62, 65 S.W.2d 882; Annotation, 67 A.L.R. 1489; 29 Am. Jur., Insurance, § 269. See, Walker v. Acacia Mut. L. Ins. Co. 178 Miss. 395, 173 So. 453; Murray v. Metropolitan L. Ins. Co. 193 S.C. 368, 8 S.E.2d 314. As said in the Buchberg case ( 249 Mich. 320, 228 N.W. 771): "* * * By its terms the statute plainly contemplates only the written application made incident to the original issuing of the policy.