Insurance Company v. McCain

96 U.S. 84, 24 L. Ed. 653, 1877 U.S. LEXIS 1629
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJanuary 28, 1878
Docket156
StatusPublished
Cited by50 cases

This text of 96 U.S. 84 (Insurance Company v. McCain) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Insurance Company v. McCain, 96 U.S. 84, 24 L. Ed. 653, 1877 U.S. LEXIS 1629 (1878).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Field,

after stating the facts of the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

The law embraced by the instructions to the jury is clearly and correctly stated. No company can be allowed to hold out another as its agent, and then disavow responsibility for his acts. After it has appointed an agent in a particular business, parties dealing with him in that business have a right to rely upon. the continuance of his authority, until in some way informed of its relocation.. The authorities to this effect are numerous, and will be found cited in the treatises of Paley and' Story on Agency.

The law is equally plain, that special instructions limiting the authority of a general agent, whose powers would otherwise be coextensive with the business intrusted to him, must be communicated to the party with whom he deals, or the principal will be bound to the same extent as though such special instructions were not given. Were the law otherwise, the door would be open to the commission of gross frauds. Good faith requires that the principal should be held by the acts of one whom he has publicly clothed with apparent authority to bind him. Story, Agency, sects. 126, 127, and cases there cited.

The law on the silence of the company, after receiving the statement of the agent that the premium had been paid, is also free from doubt. Silence then was equivalent to an adoption of the act of the agent, and closed the mouth of the company ever afterwards. It does not appear that the company ever objected to the payment of the premium to him until after the death of the insured. It was then too late. As pertinently said by counsel, the company cannot be permitted to occupy the vantage ground of retaining the premium- if the party continued in life, and repudiating it if he died.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Shultz Steel Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
187 Cal. App. 3d 513 (California Court of Appeal, 1986)
Zukaitis v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
236 N.W.2d 819 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1975)
Skates v. Preferred Fire Insurance Co.
481 S.W.2d 628 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1972)
Terry T. Liese v. Local Board No. 102
440 F.2d 645 (Eighth Circuit, 1971)
American Casualty Co. of Reading, Pa. v. Castellanos
203 So. 2d 26 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)
Yannuzzi v. United States Casualty Co.
115 A.2d 557 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1955)
Federal Savings & Loan Ins. v. First Nat. Bank
164 F.2d 929 (Eighth Circuit, 1947)
Jarvis v. Pennsylvania Casualty Co.
40 S.E.2d 308 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1946)
Lauhoff v. Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn.
56 F. Supp. 493 (E.D. Illinois, 1944)
Baum v. Rice-Stix Dry Goods Co.
157 S.W.2d 767 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1942)
Kansas City Life Ins. Co. v. Cox
104 F.2d 321 (Sixth Circuit, 1939)
Don G. McAfee, Inc. v. Great American Indemnity Co.
286 N.W. 189 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1939)
George J. Ricau & Co. v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America
173 So. 217 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1937)
Rosenberg v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co.
250 A.D. 721 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1937)
Granberg v. Pitz
262 N.W. 166 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1935)
Hall v. Union Indemnity Co.
61 F.2d 85 (Eighth Circuit, 1932)
Lyons Milling Co. v. Goffe & Carkener, Inc.
46 F.2d 241 (Tenth Circuit, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
96 U.S. 84, 24 L. Ed. 653, 1877 U.S. LEXIS 1629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/insurance-company-v-mccain-scotus-1878.