Williamsburg City Fire Insurance Company v. Charles H. Frothingham &Amp; Others
| Decision Date | 12 March 1877 |
| Citation | 122 Mass. 391 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Williamsburg City Fire Insurance Company v. Charles H. Frothingham & others |
[Syllabus Material]
Suffolk. Contract on a bond, dated September 23, 1874 running to "the Williamsburg City Fire Insurance Company of Brooklyn, New York," and its "successors and assigns," purporting to be executed by the defendant Frothingham as principal, and the defendants Albert G. Goodwin and William R. Storms as sureties, and conditioned that Frothingham, as its agent, should, among other things, "duly and properly account for, pay over and apply all sums of money which may be received by him as such agent," and "keep true and correct books of account." The writ, dated April 27, 1875, described the plaintiff as the "Williamsburg City Fire Insurance Company, a corporation duly established by law of the State of New York." The declaration, annexed to the writ, was in the usual form. The defendants filed separate answers, containing a general denial of "each and every allegation in the plaintiff's writ and declaration contained," and not otherwise denying the incorporation of the plaintiff.
At the trial in the Superior Court, before Bacon, J., the signatures of the defendants Frothingham and Goodwin were admitted. The plaintiff put in evidence tending to prove the signature of the defendant Storms, and then proceeded to offer testimony to show a breach of the bond; but the defendants, contending that by their answers it was incumbent on the plaintiff to prove its legal existence as a corporation under the laws of New York, asked the judge to rule that the bond, if proved to have been executed by the defendants, furnished no evidence of the existence of such a corporation, and that, unless the plaintiff furnished other evidence of its legal existence as such corporation, it could not recover. The judge declined so to rule, and did rule that, if the bond was duly executed by the defendants, it would furnish evidence of the legal existence of the plaintiff as a corporation.
It appeared in evidence that Frothingham was general agent of the company at Boston from September, 1873, until about April 28, 1875, and the alleged breach of the bond was, that he did not account for and pay over to the plaintiff the premiums received by him in the months of February, March and April, 1875.
To show the receipt of premiums by Frothingham, the plaintiff, among other evidence, called one Sanborn, who testified that he had been a clerk for Frothingham during the last year of his agency, and for some time before; that a book which was shown to him was a book kept by Frothingham for the company, for the purpose of showing what policies had been issued by him the amounts of the premiums, and which of them had been paid; that this book was not kept by Frothingham personally, but was kept by the witness by his direction, and contained entries only relating to the business of the company. It appeared that the book was marked "Williamsburg City," and was kept in columns. In the first column was the number of the policy, in the second the name of the insured, in the third the amount of the policy, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baird v. National Surety Co. of New York, a corporation
...... NATIONAL SURETY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, a Corporation, and Nels E. Ostrem, ...v. Barnard. (Wis.) 111 N.W. 483; Williamsburg City F. Ins. Co. v. Frothingham, 122 Mass. 391; ...Miller, directly or in. connivance with others, while the said Dewey B. Miller should. be ......
-
Baird v. Nat'l Sur. Co. of N.Y.
...and “the rule is that books kept by a principal obligor as part of his duties are evidence against the surety. Williamsburg City Fire Ins. Co. v. Frothingham, 122 Mass. 391; Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Keeler, 44 Conn. 161; Bricker v. Stone, 47 Mo. App. 530; Ency. of Evidence, vol. 2, p. 676.”......
-
Perry v. Hale
...etc., Bank v. Jenks, 7 Metc. 592;Barrett v. Mead, 10 Allen, 337;Williams v. Cheney, 3 Gray, 215;Williamsburg Ins. Co. v. Frothingham, 122 Mass. 391;Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Glendon Co., 120 Mass. 97;Washington Co. Nat. Bank v. Lee, 112 Mass. 521;Martin v. Fewell, 79 Mo. 401, 411;Stowe v. Fla......
-
Perry v. Hale
......540 10 N.E. 174 PERRY v. HALE and others. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, ... Cheney, 3 Gray, 215; Williamsburg Ins. Co. v. Frothingham, 122 Mass. 391; ... Bank v. McDonald, 130 Mass. 264; Appleton Fire Ins. Co. v. Jesser, 5 Allen, 448. Third. ... company by the fraud of Saltmarsh; that the company was ......