8 Mo.App. 408 (Mo.App. 1880), Mercantile Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hope Ins. Co.

Citation:8 Mo.App. 408
Opinion Judge:HAYDEN, J.
Party Name:MERCANTILE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. HOPE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.
Attorney:MARTIN & LACKLAND and LEE & CHANDLER, for the appellant: H. T. KENT and J. A. SEDDON, JR., for the respondent:
Judge Panel:Judge BAKEWELL concurs; Judge LEWIS is absent.
Case Date:March 02, 1880
Court:Court of Appeals of Missouri
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 408

8 Mo.App. 408 (Mo.App. 1880)

MERCANTILE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant,

v.

HOPE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis.

March 2, 1880

1. The agent of both A. and B., having placed a risk in A., cannot reinsure in B. Such a policy is void unless subsequently ratified by B.

2. Evidence of former similar transactions is inadmissible to show the agent's authority.

APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court.

Affirmed.

MARTIN & LACKLAND and LEE & CHANDLER, for the appellant: " Reinsurance effected by agents representing both sides is not void, but voidable, in the absence of previous authority." -- Mitchell v. McMullin, 59 Mo. 252; Beeson v. Beeson, 9 Barr 280; 20 Barb. 468. The evidence offered should not have been refused.-- Morse v. Diebold, 2 Mo.App. 163; Brooks v. Jamison, 55 Mo. 515; Cupples v. Whelan, 61 Mo. 583; Edwards v. Thomas, 66 Mo. 468; 62 Mo. 391; 57 Mo. 390.

H. T. KENT and J. A. SEDDON, JR., for the respondent: The contract of reinsurance made by the agent of the two contracting parties was void.-- Insurance Co. v. Insurance Co., 17 Barb. 132; Insurance Co. v. Insurance Co., 14 N.Y. 85; Michode v. Girard, 4 How. (U. S.) 513, cited and approved in Thornton v. Irwin, 43 Mo. 164; Davone v. Fanning, 2 Johns. Ch. 256; Beal v. Kirman, 6 La. 407; Broker v. Insurance Co., 2 Mason 371; Church v. Insurance Co., 1 Mason 345; 2 Rob. (La.) 1556; McDonald v. Wagner, 5 Mo.App. 56. Evidence of previous dealings of a like nature was inadmissible.--Story on Ag. (7th ed.) 210, 241, note; Insurance Co. v. Insurance Co., 14 N.Y. 85; 20 Barb. 470; Farnsworth v. Hemmer, 1 Allen 495.

OPINION

HAYDEN, J.

This is an action upon an alleged policy of reinsurance, by which it is claimed that the defendant insured the plaintiff in the sum of $5,000, on certain cargo-risks which the plaintiff had upon goods on board the steamboat Belle of St. Louis, when at St. Louis and bound for New Orleans. This reinsurance, of date December 8, 1876, was made at St. Louis by Woods & Kennett, insurance agents, and in making it Woods acted for both parties, the plaintiff and the defendant. This firm had for some years been agents of the defendant at St. Louis, and were also agents for the plaintiff and for other companies.

It appears that on December 7, 1876, the plaintiff had over $16,000 insurance on...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP