Commonwealth Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Wm. Knabe & Co. Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 20 May 1898 |
| Citation | 171 Mass. 265,50 N.E. 516 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH MUT. FIRE INS. CO. v. WM. KNABE & CO. MFG. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
S. Henry Hopper, for appellant.
W.B Stevens, for appellee.
There can be no question that Blake & Co. were the agents of the plaintiff, and that Glover & Co. were the agents of the defendant. One question is whether Tate & Cromwell were the agents of the plaintiff or defendant. If they were the agents of the defendant, or were not the agents of the plaintiff then, subject to certain considerations in regard to the terms of the policies, which will be referred to later, the policies are Massachusetts contracts. If they were the agents of the plaintiff, it might still be a question whether the policies should not be regarded as Massachusetts contracts. If the policies are to be regarded as New York contracts then the question will arise whether, the insurance being on property situated in Maryland, they are rendered invalid by the laws of New York. If the policies are to be regarded as Maryland contracts, the plaintiff does not contend that it is entitled to recover.
There is nothing to show that Tate & Cromwell were the authorized agents of the plaintiff. They are described as insurance brokers. They were requested by Glover & Co. to obtain insurance on the property described in the policies. Glover & Co. also requested them to obtain the insurance in the plaintiff company. In forwarding the application they clearly acted for Glover & Co., who in turn acted for the defendant. They did not solicit the insurance for the plaintiff from Glover & Co., but Glover & Co. requested them to procure insurance in the plaintiff company for the defendant. It seems to us plain that Tate & Cromwell must be regarded as the agents of the defendant. The fact that there were open accounts between Tate & Cromwell and Blake & Co., and that the premiums were charged to the former, who were paid by the latter out of the commissions which they were allowed by the plaintiff, has no tendency to show that they were its agents, nor has the fact that the checks received by Tate & Cromwell from Glover & Co., and sent by them to Blake & Co., were payable to the plaintiff's order, any such tendency. The plaintiff is a Massachusetts company. The offers contained in the applications were received and accepted by it in Boston. The policies were made and signed there. The contracts contained in the policies were to be performed there. When the policies were mailed at Boston to the defendant's agents at New York, if not before, the contracts were complete, and must be regarded, we think, as Massachusetts contracts. Brauer v. Shaw, 168 Mass. 198, 46 N.E. 617; Seamans v. Knapp, Stout & Co. Company, 89 Wis. 171, 61 N.W. 757; Western v. Insurance Co., 12 N.Y. 258; Bailey v. Insurance Co., 56 Me. 474; Hartford Steam-Boiler Inspection & Insurance Co. v. Lasher Stocking Co., 66 Vt. 439, 29 A. 629.
This view renders it unnecessary to consider whether the policies would have been invalid as New York contracts, or what the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Fire Ins. Co. v. King Lumber & Mfg. Co.
...... representative of both parties to a certain [74 Fla. 152] . extent. How v. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co., 80 N.Y. 32;. Monitor Mut. Ins. Co. v. Young, 111 Mass. 537;. Hartford Ins. ... insured. See French v. People, 6 Colo. App. 311, 40. P. 463; Commonwealth Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. William Knabe. & Co. Mfg. Co., 171 Mass. 265, 50 N.E. 516; 3 Am. & Eng. ......
-
Lowell Bar Ass'n v. Loeb
...... newspapers of this Commonwealth the making of tax returns,. from maintaining ... findings. Trade Mutual Liability Ins. Co. v. Peters, . 291 Mass. 79 , 83, 84. ... Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. William Knabe & Co. Manuf. Co. 171 ......
-
Stone v. Old Colony St. Ry. Co.
...... corporation chartered by the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. By. the terms of the contract, ...443, 84 N.E. 98;. American Spirits Mfg. Co. v. Eldridge, 209 Mass. 597, 95 N.E. 942; ...656, 49 L. R. A. 725; Capital City Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Boggs,. 172 Pa. 91, 33 A. 349. ...Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. William. Knabe & Co. Mfg. Co., 171 Mass. 265, 50 N.E. 516;. ......
-
Stone v. Old Colony St. Ry. Co.
...387;Perry v. Hope Iron Co., 15 R. I. 380, 381, 5 Atl. 632,2 Am. St. Rep. 902;Com. Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. William Knabe & Co. Mfg. Co., 171 Mass. 265, 50 N. E. 516;Stone v. Penn Yan, Keuka Park & Branchport Ry., 197 N. Y. 279, 90 N. E. 843,134 Am. St. Rep. 879;United States v. Thayer, 209 U......