Black v. Sec. Mut. Life Ass'n

• Decision Date: 31 January 1901
• Citation: Black v. Sec. Mut. Life Ass'n, 51 A.L.R. 939, 49 A. 51, 95 Me. 35 (Me. 1901)
• Parties: BLACK v. SECURITY MUT. LIFE ASS'N.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

49 A. 51

95 Me. 35

BLACK

v. SECURITY MUT. LIFE ASS'N.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Jan. 31, 1901.

Action by Austin Black against the Security Mutual Life Association to recover commissions due plaintiff on policies of insurance procured by him as advance agent. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepts. Exceptions sustained.

Argued before WISWELL, C. J., and WHITEHOUSE, STROUT, SAVAGE, and POWERS, JJ.

L. M. Staples, for plaintiff.

R. I. Thompson, for defendant.

WISWELL, C. J. Action of assumpsit, upon an account annexed to the writ, to recover commissions upon premiums paid by various persons to the defendant on policies of life insurance issued by it, the applications for which were solicited, received, and forwarded to the defendant by the plaintiff under a written contract between the plaintiff and the defendant wherein the plaintiff was appointed an agent of the defendant "for the purpose of procuring and effecting applications for insurance," and which provided for the compensation that was to be received by the plaintiff.

At the trial the defendant among other defenses, contended that some or all of the applications of these persons for insurance were solicited, received, and forwarded to the defendant at a time when the plaintiff had no license from the insurance commissioner of this state as provided by Rev. St c. 49, § 73, and subsequent amendments, and that consequently the plaintiff could not recover. The case shows that the plaintiff had no such license between July 1 and October 18, 1897.

Thereupon the defendant's counsel requested the presiding justice to instruct the jury that the plaintiff could not recover any commission upon the premiums paid to the company in cases where the applications for such insurance were solicited by the plaintiff during the period that he was without such a license. The requested instruction was applicable to the state of facts involved, because, although the policies may have been in fact issued after October 18, 1897, and during a period when the plaintiff had a license, it is clear that in more or less instances the plaintiffs work in soliciting and receiving applications for the policies was performed during the period that he was without a license.

In order to give progress to the case, the presiding justice declined to give the requested instruction, hut did instruct the jury "that for any policy bearing date subsequent to the 18th of October the plaintiff is entitled to his commission from the company upon that risk, although he may have solicited the insurance before that time and made himself liable to the penalty." To this refusal to instruct, and to the instruction given, the defendant (the verdict being for the plaintiff) took exception.

The statute...