Faulkner v. Manchester Fire Assur. Co.
| Decision Date | 23 May 1898 |
| Citation | 50 N.E. 529,171 Mass. 349 |
| Parties | FAULKNER et al. v. MANCHESTER FIRE ASSUR. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Niles & Carr, for plaintiffs.
J.D Bryant and L.E. Griswold, for defendant.
We think that the plaintiffs' right to recover was not affected by the mistake in the proof of loss in regard to the number of the building. The description of the building corresponded in other respects with that contained in the policy, and there is nothing to show that the defendant was misled or prejudiced by the error. It received the proof without objecting, then or during the subsequent negotiations, to the mistake in the number; and the jury might have found that it had waived any objection to the proof it might have had on that ground. Blake v Insurance Co., 12 Gray, 265; Graves v. Insurance Co., 12 Allen, 391; Underhill v. Insurance Co., 6 Cush. 440.
We do not find it necessary to consider whether there was evidence tending to show that the defendant waived the provision in the policy in regard to arbitration in case the parties were unable to agree as to the amount of loss, since we are of opinion that the policy was duly canceled before the fire occurred. It is admitted that Madden was the agent of the defendant, and that as such agent he had authority to issue, deliver, and cancel the policy in suit; but the plaintiffs contend that in procuring the policy, and delivering it to him for cancellation, Miss Wentworth acted as his agent, and not as their agent. It was uncontroverted that the plaintiffs applied to one Breed to secure insurance on the building, and that he, in turn applied to Madden, who issued the policy. After the policy was issued and delivered, the defendant company requested Madden to cancel it and promptly return it to the main office. Thereupon Madden went to Breed's office, and told Miss Wentworth, who was the clerk in charge, that he was instructed to cancel the policy, and asked her to get it, and bring it to him for cancellation, which she did. Breed had procured other insurance for the plaintiffs. It is evident, we think, that Miss Wentworth must be regarded, in Breed's absence, as representing him, and that, in applying at Breed's office for the policy, Madden treated Breed as the party who had represented and acted for the plaintiffs in procuring the insurance, and as the proper person through whom to make application...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
N. Pelaggi & Co. v. Orient Insurance Co
... ... 1 ... Provision in fire insurance policy that it might be cancelled ... by giving insured a five ... 649; Rothschild v. Ins. Co., 41 A. R. 303; ... Commercial Union Assur. Co. v. State, 15 N.E. 518; ... Louman v. Springfield F. & M. I. Co., ... Co. v ... Exchange Ins. Co., 166 Mass. 484; Faulkner v ... Manchester Fire Ins. Co., 171 Mass. 349; Buick v ... Mechanics ... ...
-
N. Pelaggi & Co., Inc. v. Orient Ins. Co.
...at least evidence tending to show that Miss Davis had authority to and actually did ratify what they had done. Faulkner v. Manchester Fire Assur. Co., 171 Mass. 349, 50 N. E. 529. The defendant makes some claim that McAllister & Kent withheld material facts concerning this matter, so that i......
-
Palumbo v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
... ... Butterworth v. Western Assurance Co., 132 Mass. 489, ... 492; Faulkner v. Manchester Fire Assurance Co., 171 ... Mass. 349, 351, 50 N.E. 529; ... ...
-
Horn v. Dorchester Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
...was no general or previous agency, nor express authority from the plaintiff to him to cancel upon condition; hence Faulkner v. Mass. Fire Ins. Co., 171 Mass. 349, 50 N. E. 529, is distinguishable. If the agency exists, it must be implied from these facts: The plaintiff was solicited to let ......