Monitor Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Buffum

• Citation: 115 Mass. 343
• Parties: Monitor Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. James N. Buffum
• Decision Date: 27 June 1874
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

115 Mass. 343

Monitor Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. James N. Buffum

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

June 27, 1874

Suffolk. Contract on four promissory notes given as premium notes under four policies of insurance. At the trial in the Superior Court before Pitman, J., the case was after verdict for the defendant reported to this court in substance as follows:

The defendant denied the making of the notes, which were signed "James N. Buffum, per John H. Bubier."

The several policies were offered in evidence and were of the same general tenor. Each policy re cited that the insured had paid a cash premium and given a deposit note for a like amount. It appeared that the by-laws of the company authorized the taking of a deposit note for the same amount as the cash premium, and that such was the practice of the company.

The plaintiff then proved the issue of the policies; that they were procured through said John H. Bubier, the person executing the notes in question; that he made the cash payments provided for in the policies at the same time that he signed the notes; that the policies were delivered by Bubier to the defendant, and were never cancelled or surrendered, but remained in full force until after the insolvency of the company and the appointment of a receiver. The said Bubier was agent of the plaintiff for the city of Lynn for the purpose of soliciting risks, but for no other purpose, deducting fifteen per cent. as his commission for all cash premiums, by an arrangement with the company.

Upon this evidence the plaintiff rested. The defendant then testified that being importuned by Bubier to allow him to get the defendant insured, he assented, and told Bubier he might do so in some good company, and that when Bubier brought him the policies he paid him the several cash premiums; that he took the policies and put them in his desk, but that he never read them until after this suit; that he never authorized Bubier in any way to sign these notes or any notes whatever nor ever knew of their being signed, or that there were any notes given.

The plaintiff did not claim to control this evidence of the defendant; but contended that the defendant, by taking the policy under the circumstances above recited, ratified the act of Bubier, and was estopped to dispute the execution or validity of the notes. But the court ruled otherwise and directed a verdict for the defendant, which was rendered accordingly.

If the ruling of the court at the trial was right, judgment is to be entered on the verdict; but if the plaintiff's view of the law is correct the verdict is to be set aside and judgment entered for the plaintiff for the amount of the notes and interest.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

E Morton & J. Willard, for the defendant, to the point that there was no subsequent ratification by the defendant of Bubier's unauthorized act in signing the notes, cited Combs v. Scott, 12 Allen 493, 496; Hoxie v. Home Insurance Company, 32 Conn. 21; Nickerson v. Darrow 5 Allen 419.

W. G. Colburn, for the plaintiff.

OPINION

Wells, J.

...