American Life Ins. & Trust Co. v. Shultz

• Decision Date: 29 May 1876
• Citation: 82 Pa. 46
• Parties: The American Life Insurance and Trust Co. <I>versus</I> Shultz.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

82 Pa. 46

The American Life Insurance and Trust Co. versus Shultz.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 3, 1876.

May 29, 1876.

May 3d 1876.

Before AGNEW, C. J., SHARSWOOD, MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON and WOODWARD JJ. WILLIAMS, J., absent

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster county: Of May Term 1876, No. 69.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Wm. Aug. Atlee and Isaac Hazlehurst, for plaintiff in error.— Within the spirit of the Act of 1869, Shultz incompetent: Karns v. Tanner, 16 P. F. Smith 305; Hanna v. Wray, 27 Id. 27. Rejection of evidence of powers of agents: Hays & Wick v. Lynn, 7 Watts 525; Moore's Ex'rs v. Patterson, 4 Casey 512; Fire Association v. Williamson, 2 Id. 198. The policy defines rights of parties: West Branch Ins. Co. v. Helfenstein, 4 Wright 296; Hays & Wick v. Lynn, 7 Watts 525 supra; Moore's Ex'rs v. Patterson, 4 Casey 512; Greenleaf's Ev., vol. 2, sect. 59; Junction Railroad Co. v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 2 Weekly Notes 277; Irvine v. Buckaloe, 12 S. & R. 37; Fire Ins. Co. v. Massey, 9 Casey 225; Jordan v. Stewart, 11 Harris 247; Bank v. Bank, 1 Parsons 246. As to measure of damages, submit the following tabulated statement:—

                                DAVID SHULTZ, WITH AMERICAN LIFE INS. CO
                 DR.                                                                CR
                -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 1866                                1866
                Apl. 16,  To anl. prem.    $818 00  Apl. 16,  By cash.            $409 00
                 1867                                         In. not charg'd in
                Apl. 16,    do.    do,      818 00               advance
                 "    "   "Int. on note      24 54   1867     By cash.             409 00
                 1868                                          " Interest.          24 54
                Apl. 16,  To anl. prem.     818 00   1868
                 "    "   Int. on 2 notes    49 08  Apl. 16,  By cash.             409 00
                 1869                                          " Interest.          49 08
                Apl. 16,  To anl. prem.     818 00   1869
                 "    "   Int. on 3 notes    73 62  Apl. 16,  By cash.             409 00
                 1870                                          " Interest.          73 62
                Apl. 16,  To anl. prem.     818 00   1870
                 "    "   Int. on 4 notes    98 16  Apl. 16,  By cash.             409 00
                 1871                                          " Interest.          98 16
                Apl. 16,  To anl. prem.     818 00   1871
                 "    "   Int. on notes     112 72  Apl. 16,  By cash.             409 00
                 1872                                          " Interest.         112 72
                Apl. 16,  To anl. prem.     818 00   1872
                 "    "   Int. on notes     113 40  Apl. 16,  By cash.             409 00
                 1873                                          " Interest.         127 93
                Apl. 16,  To Int. unp'd.    143 84               Balance.        2,992 31
                          ______________ __________ ________  _________________ __________
                                         $6,341 36                              $6,341 36
                                                                                __________
                Apl.'73, To Balance,      2,992 31
                         Notes in hand
                          of Co.          2,399 00
                        ________________ __________
                                           $593 31
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                

Defendant's 1st and 3d points: Mecke v. Insurance Co., 8 Phila. R. 6; Leg. Int. 1871, p. 5. 6th point: Weisenberger v. Harmony Ins. Co., 6 P. F. Smith 442; Lee v. Guard Life Ins. Co., U. S. C. C. California Ins. L. J., January 76, p. 26; Bush v. West Chester Fire Ins. Co., 63 N. Y. 531.

D. G. Eshleman, O. J. Dickey and S. H. Reynolds, for defendant in error.—As to evidence of agent's authority: Bennett v. Judson, 21 N. Y. 238, 239; Udell v. Atherton, 7 Hurlst. & N. (Exch.) 171; Mal. Iron Works v. Insurance Co., 25 Conn. 465; 1 Smith's Lead. Cases 329, 6 Am. ed.; Bebee v. Hartford M. F. Ins. Co., 25 Conn. 51; Beale v. Park Ins. Co., 16 Wis. 241; Keeler v. Niagara Co., Id. 525; Insurance Co. v. Wilkinson, 13 Wall. 222; Adams Express Co. v. Schlessinger, 25 P. F. Smith 246; Tanner v. Oil Creek Railroad Co., 3 Id. 411; Woodbury Savings Bank v. Charter Oak Ins. Co., 31 Conn. 517, 527; Powelton Coal Co. v. McShain, 25 P. F. Smith 238. As to the Statute of Limitations: 3 Am. Law Times 28, February No. 1876; Marton v. Ætna Life Ins. Co., s. c. Tenn. Ins. L. J., December 1875.

Mr. Justice PAXSON delivered the opinion of the court, May 29th 1876.

We do not see any merit in the first assignment of error. There is nothing in the Act of 15th of April 1869, which in terms excludes the plaintiff below as a witness. But it is contended that he comes within the spirit of the act, which was intended to produce equality, and not to open the lips of one party while those of the other were closed. The answer to this is that the deceased person, Mr. Geiger, was not a party to the contract nor to this proceeding. He was merely the agent of the insurance company, and a competent witness prior to the Act of 1869. Said act makes no one incompetent who was competent before. It was manifestly intended to enlarge, not to restrain the admission of evidence. A person, natural or artificial, who contracts through an agent, necessarily loses the benefit of his evidence in case of the death of such agent. Such event has never been held to close the mouth of the party dealing with the agent. It may be his misfortune, but it is one which we are powerless to remedy, and for which the Act of 1869 does not provide.

We are not prepared to say that the court erred in rejecting the evidence offered to show the powers of the defendants' agents generally. But it was manifest error to exclude an inquiry as to the powers of Mr. Geiger, the agent with whom the plaintiff contracted. His acts could only bind the company within the scope of his authority, hence proof of his authority was material even for the plaintiff. The burden of proof lies on him to establish the agency and the extent of it: Hays v. Lynn, 7 Watts 525. The plaintiff having given some evidence to show that Geiger was agent for the company, but without any definite or accurate statement of his powers, it was clearly competent for the company to show what his powers were; or that he had exceeded his authority, or to deny the agency itself. The extent of an agent's powers depends upon the authority under which he acts. This may be shown by his written instructions or his course of dealing. It is true the public are not always bound by the private instructions of the agent; and may hold the principal responsible, though the particular acts done are in excess of his private instructions. This was asserted in Adams Express Co. v. Schlessinger, 25 P. F. Smith 246. It applies to cases where the agent has been held out to the world as such by the principal, allowed to exercise enlarged powers from time to time, and his acts therein have been ratified by his principal. But this doctrine in no sense conflicts with the right of the principal to show that his agent in a given...