Manning v. Insurance Company
| Decision Date | 01 October 1879 |
| Citation | 100 U.S. 693,25 L.Ed. 761 |
| Parties | MANNING v. INSURANCE COMPANY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. William Henry Arnoux for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. James C. Carter, contra.
The John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, on the second day of December, 1868, employed Manning and one Hall as its general agents for New York and other States, to secure applications for life insurance, and to collect and pay over premiums on insurances effected. It was stipulated that the agreement should continue in force three years from Sept. 1, 1867, and that it might thereafter be terminated by either party on giving six months' notice. By the contract, the compensation allowed to Hall and Manning was twenty per cent on the ordinary premiums upon all policies (excepting those paid for by single payments) for the first year, and seven and one half per cent for the second and subsequent years of assurance. An additional allowance was also made for travelling and incidental expenses. It was further stipulated that these allowances should continue to be paid for twenty-five years from the date of each policy, should any continue so long in force; and, further, that the agents should remit monthly all moneys collected by them, and return all uncollected policies and receipts sent to them for collection by the company. The contract declared that commissions should accrue only as the premiums were paid to the company.
On the 13th of May, 1870, Hall assigned his interest in the contract to Manning, with the approval of the company.
On the seventeenth day of September, 1870, a new arrangement in lieu of the former was made between the parties, by which it was agreed that Manning should thenceforward receive for his compensation $5,000 per annum, the commission to sub-agents to be twenty-five and seven and one-half per cent; that Manning should collect the renewals of the old business of Hall, and Hall and Manning, and receive the renewal commissions which said renewals were entitled to under the former contract. This contract was terminable at the option of the company at any time within three years.
About the 1st of June, 1871, the company discharged Manning from its service, for reasons which the verdict in the case establishes to have been lawful and sufficient, and brought this suit to recover its money in his hands.
Among other defences set up against the claim of the plaintiff, the defendant offered to show that a set-off existed in his favor for commissions collected and received by the plaintiff from May 1, 1871, to Dec. 23, 1871, and interest thereon to the time of the trial. To sustain this (after having made proof of notice to the plaintiff to produce the books and papers necessary to show the amount of renewal premiums received by it from policies obtained through his agency during the period mentioned, and the books and papers not being produced), he gave evidence to prove that on the 2d of June, 1871, there were policies in force upon which the annual premiums would be $87,000, as it appeared in his accounts with his sub-agencies; that his annual commissions upon the premiums would amount to $8,391.14; and that, computing the amount which would be due to him, accruing between June 2, 1871, when he was discharged, and Dec. 23, 1871, when the suit was commenced, they amounted to about $4,754.97.
But no direct proof whatever was given that any of the policies in force on the 1st of May, 1871, or on the 2d of June, 1871, had been renewed or extended, or that any of the annual premiums becoming payable after those dates had been paid to or received by the plaintiff.
Upon this evidence the Circuit Court instructed the jury, in effect, that if the defendant had been removed from his agency without justifiable cause, they might find from it what amount the plaintiff should have received of renewal premiums; but if they found he was justifiably removed, there was no proof for their consideration of the amount of renewal premiums received or collected in the hands of the company upon which he was entitled to commissions.
In another part of the charge the same instruction was given, though in different order. It was, that if by his own conduct the defendant rendered his removal necessary, before he could recover from the plaintiff his portion of the renewals, it would be incumbent upon hism to show, not only how many policies had been taken by his agency, and the premiums due upon them, but also that the premiums had been paid to the plaintiff. On the other hand, if by its wrongful act of removing him the plaintiff deprived him of the means of collecting the premiums, then when he had shown that renewal premiums to a certain amount were due and payable upon life policies at the time when he was removed, which because of its own act the plaintiff was bound to collect, if collectible, he was entitled to the presumption that they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lewis v. Rio Grande Western Ry. Co.
... ... Lewis, against Rio Grande Western Railway Company ... Judgment ... for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals ... AFFIRMED ... presumption. In other words, a presumption cannot be based ... upon a presumption. (Manning v. Insurance Co., 100 ... U.S. 693, 698; Welsh v. Erie & W. V. R. Co., 181 Pa ... 461, 37 A ... ...
-
St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Bridges
... ... Action ... by J. V. Bridges against the St. Louis & San Francisco ... Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant ... appeals. Affirmed in part, and in part reversed and ... facts proved--not conjectures ... Manning ... v. Jno. Hancock Life Ins. Co., 100 U.S. 603-699, 25 L.Ed. 761 ... and 763; St. L. & S. F. R ... ...
-
Bilsky v. Sun Insurance Office, Limited
...the prejudicial arguments based on such testimony, deprived plaintiffs of a fair trial. Northland v. Ross, 92 U.S., l.c. 283; Manning v. Ins. Co., 100 U.S. 693; Brauer v. U.S., 299 Fed., l.c. 13; Xenia v. Stewart, 114 U.S., l.c. 231; Turner v. Hand, 3 Wall. Jr. (C.C.) 112, 24 Fed. Cas. No. ......
-
United States v. Mammoth Oil Co.
...v. Ross, 92 U. S. 281, 23 L. Ed. 707; Missouri K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Foreman et al., 174 F. 377, 98 C. C. A. 281; Manning v. Mut. L. Ins. Co., 100 U. S. 693, 25 L. Ed. 761; Looney v. Metropolitan R. Co., 200 U. S. 480, 26 S. Ct. 303, 50 L. Ed. 564. Persons engaging in conspiracies to commit fr......