This court, ever since the adoption of the statute now incorporated into the Code of 1930 as Section 5196, but which first appearing in the Code of 1880 as Section 1086, has always held that a general agent such as the appellee, Pigford, was in this particular case, during the negotiations leading up to the consummation of the contract, was the alter ego of the company and could make contracts and bind the company as he saw fit. Ins. Co. v. Sheffy, 71 Miss. 919; Ins. Co. v. Gibson, 72 Miss. 58; Mitchell v. Miss. Home Ins. Co., 72 Miss. 53; Liverpool, etc., Ins. Co. v. Lbr. Co., 72 Miss. 535; Fire Ins. Co. v. Bank, 73 Miss. 469, 18 So. 931; Western Assurance Co. v. Phelps, 77 Miss. 625; Fire Ins. Co. v. Randle, 81 Miss. 720, 33 So. 500; Home Ins. Co. v. Stevens, 93 Miss. 439, 46 So. 245; Fire Assn. v. Stein, 88 Miss. 499, 41 So. 66; Germania Life Ins. Co. v. Bouldin, 100 Miss. 660, 56 So. 609; Scottish Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Wylie, 110 Miss. 681, 70 So. 835; Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Franks, 145 Miss. 494, 111 So. 195; Lamar Life Ins. Co. v. Kemp, 154 Miss. 890, 124 So. 62; Interstate Life Ins. Co. v. Ruble, 160 Miss. 206, 133 So. 223; Capital Paint Glass Co. v. St. Paul Mercury Ind. Co., 176 So. 729. The appellant in this case can not take advantage of the fact that the applications were filled in by the company's agent, for the reason that the company would have forever been estopped to claim any benefit by reason of any misstatement made in the application.