Fayles v. Nat'l Ins. Co. of Hannibal
| Decision Date | 29 February 1872 |
| Parties | THOMAS W. FAYLES, Respondent, v. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF HANNIBAL, MO., Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Clinton Circuit Court
Geo. H. Shields, for appellant, cited First National Bank of Kansas City v. Hogan, 47 Mo. 474.Hall & Oliver, for respondent.
I. The evidence offered by plaintiff and objected to by defendant was properly admitted. The action of defendant, in recognizing the validity of the acts of its agent to bind it, is the very best evidence of the agent's authority and of its extent. (6 Wall. 785; 5 Mo. 555; 7 Mo. 318; 2 Stark. Ev. 33.)
II. A recognition by the principal, of the agency in the particular instances, or in similar instances, is evidence of the authority of the agent. (7 Mo. 318; 2 Stark. Ev.)
The only point saved in the record and presented for our determination is the ruling of the court on the admissibility of the plaintiff's evidence. The action was founded on a bill of exchange purporting to be drawn in the name of the defendant by its general agent, in favor of one Otterman, in payment of a loss which he had sustained by fire on a building which was insured by defendant. The bill was assigned and transferred to the plaintiff.
The answer denied the authority of the agent to draw the bill and make it binding on the company. For the purpose of showing authority, plaintiff gave evidence proving that the general agent had drawn similar bills in like cases, and that the said bills were paid by the company. This evidence was objected to, but the objection was overruled, and it was admitted by the court.
Defendant introduced in evidence the by-laws of the company, the fifth section of which provides that the general agent shall have power to appoint or remove local agents, give them general instructions and directions, render them such assistance as may be necessary to secure business, and also have the general supervision of the agency departments. Power is moreover given him, under the direction of the executive committee, to compromise and settle claims arising from loss and damage.
The trial was before a court without a jury, and judgment was for the plaintiff. If the evidence was admissible, the verdict can not be disturbed.
In the case of the First National Bank of Kansas City v. Hogan, 47 Mo. 472, the proposition was laid down that a draft signed by an officer of an insurance company alone is not binding on the company where there is no evidence of any usage or law giving him authority to bind the company. There it was shown that the secretary signed the draft and acted for the company in the capacity of secretary. But the signing was the only thing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J.E. Blank, Inc., v. Lennox Land Co.
...Mo. App. 376; Patterson v. Prudential Ins. Co., 23 S.W. (2d) 198; Thimmig v. General Talking Pictures Corp., 85 S.W. (2d) 208; Fayles v. Natl. Ins. Co., 49 Mo. 380; Moore v. Gaus & Sons Mfg. Co., 113 Mo. 98, 20 S.W. 975; Koewing v. Greene County B. & L. Assn., 327 Mo. 680, 38 S.W. (2d) 40; ......
-
J. E. Blank, Inc. v. Lennox Land Co.
... ... Gallaher, 124 ... U.S. 506, 510, 31 L.Ed. 526; Natl. Refining Co. v ... Cox, 227 Mo.App. 778, 57 S.W.2d 778; Insurance Co ... Mo. 284, 234 S.W. 787; Darby v. Northwestern Mut. Life ... Ins. Co., 293 Mo. 1, 239 S.W. 68, 21 A. L. R. 920; ... Curtis v. Alexander, ... General Talking Pictures ... Corp., 85 S.W.2d 208; Fayles v. Natl. Ins. Co., ... 49 Mo. 380; Moore v. Gaus & Sons Mfg. Co., 113 ... ...
-
Magnolia Compress & Warehouse Company v. St. Louis Cash Register Company
... ... 280; First Nat. Bank of Kansas ... City v. Hogan, 47 Mo. 472; Fayles v. Nat. Ins. Co ... of Hannibal, Mo., 49 Mo. 380; Stothard v. Aull, ... ...
-
Merritt v. Adams County Land & Investment Company, a Corporation
...of United States v. Danderidge, 12 Wheat. 64, 6 L.Ed. 552; Zabriskie v. Cleveland, C. & C. R. Co. 23 How. 381, 16 L.Ed. 488; Fayles v. National Ins. Co. 49 Mo. 380; Co. v. Howe Mach. Co. 54 Conn. 357, 1 Am. St. Rep. 123, 8 A. 472; Farmers' & M. Bank v. Butchers' & D. Bank, 16 N.Y. 125, 69 A......