Chase v. New York Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 20 May 1905
• Citation: 74 N.E. 325,188 Mass. 271
• Parties: CHASE v. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. (two cases).
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

188 Mass. 271

74 N.E. 325

CHASE v. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. (two cases).

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 20, 1905

COUNSEL

Chas F. Perkins and Everett N. Curtis, for plaintiff.

Wm. A Morse, for defendant.

OPINION

LATHROP, J.

These are two actions of contract, in each of which the plaintiff seeks to recover, as damages for an alleged breach of a contract in writing, his commissions upon renewal premiums received by the defendant upon policies of life insurance procured by the plaintiff while acting as agent of the defendant. The two cases were tried together without a jury before the late chief justice of the superior court, who in both cases found for the defendant, and in one case found for it in a certain sum on a declaration in set-off. No question arises concerning this declaration in set-off, and the only question is as to the right of the plaintiff to his commissions on the renewal premiums, and this depends upon the construction of the contract. The writs have different dates, and we assume that they cover different periods of time. The contract in question was entered into on January 14, 1898, for the term of one year. It was subsequently extended by written agreements to January 14, 1901. The plaintiff worked under the contract from its date, obtaining applications for life insurance, upon which the defendant issued its policies until he was discharged, on August 13, 1900. This discharge was found by the court below not to be for cause. On September 8, 1900, the plaintiff entered the employ of the United States Life Insurance Company, having its offices in Boston, and was so acting as manager at the time of bringing these actions. It was for so acting that a finding was made for the defendant in the superior court. The second article of the contract provided: 'It is agreed that the said party of the second part [the plaintiff] shall act exclusively as agent for said party of the first part [the defendant], and as such agent shall devote his entire time talents and energies to the business of the agency hereby established.' By the sixth article, the district within which the plaintiff was to operate was Boston and vicinity. The twenty-first article of the contract reads as follows: 'It is agreed that said party of the second part shall be allowed, under this agreement, the following compensation only, unless otherwise expressly stipulated in writing, namely, a commission on the original or renewal cash premiums, which shall, during his continuance as said agent of said party of the first part be obtained, collected, paid to and received by said party of the first part up to and including the fifth year of assurance (should his agency continue so long) on policies of insurance effected with said party of the first part, by or through said party of the second part, which commission shall be at and after the following rates.' Then follows a table of the rates, which is not material to the consideration of the question presented. The twenty-fourth article of the agreement reads as follows: 'It is agreed that the renewal commissions which shall not have accrued at the termination of the agency created by this agreement shall,...