Davis v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 03 February 1882
• Citation: 12 F. 281
• Parties: DAVIS and others v. NIAGARA FIRE INS. CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

12 F. 281

DAVIS and others v. NIAGARA FIRE INS. CO.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois.

February 3, 1882

Schuyler & Follansbee, for plaintiffs.

Lawrence Proudfoot, for defendant.

BLODGETT D. J., (orally.)

This is a suit by plaintiffs for the recovery of damages from defendant on the ground that the defendant unwarrantable revoked the authority of plaintiffs to act as defendant's agents in the city of Chicago. The proof shows, and without dispute, that on or about February 1, 1875, the defendant appointed the plaintiffs its agents to place risks and transact its business in this city. A commission or appointment to the plaintiffs as such agents was issued by the defendant, empowering them to transact the business of insurance for the defendant and as its agents, subject to the rules and regulations of the company, and instructions to be from time to time given by its officers, with no limitation as to the time the agency was to continue. The defendants entered upon the performance of their duties as such agents from year to year. Afterwards, the defendant, in its reports to the auditor of this state, and in taking out its annual licenses and certificates for the transaction of business in this state, named the plaintiffs among its authorized agents. In January, 1881, the defendant, by letter from its secretary to the auditor of state, designated certain persons, among whom were the plaintiffs, to act as agents of the defendant in this state for the then ensuing year. and the auditor, in pursuance of this request, issued a license to the plaintiffs as such agents, and plaintiffs continued to act as such agents for defendant up to the first day of May last, when their agency and power to act for and in behalf of defendant was revoked, and the business transferred to other persons. The plaintiffs contend that by the action of the company at the beginning of the year, in requesting from the auditor that they be named among the defendant's agents, they were appointed and made agents of defendant for the entire fiscal year from the first day of January, 1881, and claimed the right to recover as damages the commissions they would have earned upon the business they could have transacted for the defendant during the year, basing their estimate of the probable amount of such business and earnings upon the results of their business in previous years. Defendant insists that the appointment of plaintiffs...