Thornton v. The Western Reserve Farmers' Insurance Co.

• Decision Date: 01 January 1858
• Citation: 31 Pa. 529
• Parties: Thornton et al. versus The Western Reserve Farmers' Insurance Company.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

31 Pa. 529

Thornton et al. versus The Western Reserve Farmers' Insurance Company.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

ERROR to the Common Pleas of Erie county.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Grant, for the plaintiffs in error, cited Act 10th March 1810, § 1, Brightly's Purd. 447; Buckner v. Finley, 2 Pet. 586; Warder v. Arell, 2 Wash. 298; Act 13th April 1827, P. L. 239; Act 23d April 1829, P. L. 264; Act 24th January 1849, Brightly's Purd. 447; Zack v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 1 Casey 396; Smith v. Moffat, 1 Barb. 65; Young v. McKensie, 2 Kelly 31; Schuyler v. Mercer County, 4 Gilm. 20; 2 Burr. 899; 2 Saund. 352, note 3; Lytle v. Colts, 3 Casey 194; Mitchell v. Smith, 1 Binn. 110; Carth. 252; Seidenbender v. Charles's Administrators, 4 S. & R. 157; Biddis v. James, 6 Binn. 329; Barton v. Hughes, 2 Br. 48; Hunt v. Knickerbocker, 5 Johns. 328; Columbia Bank v. Haldeman, 7 W. & S. 233; 1 Com. on Cont. 30; Condon v. Walker, 1 Yeates 483; Holman v. Johnson, Cowp. 343; Belding v. Pitkin, 2 Caines 149; 4 Johns. 426; 5

T. R. 242, 599; 3 Id. 454; Id. 23; 8 S. & R. 224; Pet. C. C. 417; Cambioso v. Maffett, 2 W. C. C. 98; Huberus, Lib. 1, tit. 3, De conflict. leg., § 2; Forbes v. Cochrane, 2 B. & C. 448, 471.

W. A. Galbraith, for the defendants in error.

The opinion of the court was delivered by LOWRIE, C. J.

It does not seem to us that the Act of 10th March 1810, relative to foreign insurance companies, applies to companies of other states of the Union; but the Act of 13th April 1827 covers the omitted ground. Yet we do not see that even it applies to this case; for it relates to agents for making and renewing contracts of insurance, and this agent was only for receiving applications. Besides, it does not forbid insurances of this kind; but merely imposes certain public duties on the agents. And the Act of 23d April 1829 does not forbid the contract, but only imposes a tax on the premiums received, and provides for its collection. The Act of 24th January 1849 seems to us to apply to branch or agency offices or places of business established in this state by companies of other states, and not to mere transient or travelling agents to invite applications to be sent to the company itself; which seems to be the only agency proved here. Thornton sent to the company in Ohio by the agent, his application with his premium note, as his proposal for a policy, and the company accepted it by sending him the policy. For these reasons we must declare that this contract...