National Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Lester

17 F. Cas. 1218, 1875 U.S. App. LEXIS 1493

This text of 17 F. Cas. 1218 (National Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Lester) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
National Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Lester, 17 F. Cas. 1218, 1875 U.S. App. LEXIS 1493 (circtdct 1875).

Opinion

SHIPMAN, District Judge.

It has already been found as a matter of fact that Mr. Lester had agreed to be directly and primarily liable to the plaintiffs for all the premiums upon policies issued or contracted for by each one of the agents whom he employed in the New England States. He was appointed the general agent and manager of the plaintiffs’ business throughout the territory óf New England, receiving a commission of twenty.five per cent, upon all the business which.'' might be doné. He was to introduce the'éoin-pany to the people of New England, and to obtain .for it position and business. For this purpose he was to select his employees, .or subagents, who resided in different towns,. and who, from their skill and experience as insurance solicitors or agents, would be likely to make the enterprise remunerative to himself and to his principals. While, as between the public and the company, these persons were the agents of the eompány, provided with powers of attorney which indicated that the company was bound by their acts in regard to insurance upon propeity, yet so far as their compensation and the disposition of the premiums which they received, and their accounts were concerned, they were the employees of Mr. Lester. He undertook, not as guarantor or.surety, but primarily, .to pay the company the premiums which might be payable from all of his subagents,- and the company engaged to pay to him twenty-five per cent, of these premiums, as his com-', pensation for the expensive and onerous business which he conducted. These premiums, after deducting the commission, were his own debt to the company. This contract in regard to his liability was a contract entered into in: terms between the parties, and its existence-is not now, and never has been, seriously denied by Mr. Lester. He has relied, alike before and since the commencement of this litigation, upon the belief that the plaintiff had relieved him from the liability which he assumed when he entered upon the agency.

I cannot perceive from the evidence that this legal liability for the payment of premiums has ever been changed. It is true that the plaintiffs improperly informed Mr. Sproat that he was at liberty to pay his receipts to them; it is also true that Mr. Sproat should have declined to accede to this suggestion, and should have remitted to Mr. Lester. But the legal relations between the contracting parties were not necessarily altered by this in-termeddling on the part of the company with Mr. Lester’s appropriate business. If he had been injuriously affected by this interference, or if he had been placed thereby pecuniarily in a worse position than he would otherwise have occupied, or if the difficulty of enforcing collections from Mr. Sproat had increased by reason of the acts of the company, then there might have been good ground for the claim that he was no longer liable to pay money, which their conduct had prevented him from receiving. No attempt was made on the trial by the defendant to show that any less money had been paid by Mr. Sproat than would have been paid had the remittances been made directly to Mr. Lester, or that his vigilance and activity in compelling Mr. Sproat to make payment had been relaxed by the acts of the plaintiffs. Mr. Lester was the general agent of the insurance company from July 1, 1872, until December 7,1872, and was immediately and directly liable to them for the premiums upon the policies of the company which his subagents had agreed to issue prior to the termination of his agency. The company simply informed one of his subagents that he might remit to them the monies which should be collected upon business which had been done by him prior to December 7, 1872. This direction did not change the legal relations between the parties, and was productive of no harm to Mr. Lester, who remains still liable to the plaintiffs for all moneys due from him which they have not received. Let the account be taken upon the principles which have here been indicated.

A.

“Office of the National Fire and Marine Insurance Company, No. 904 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, Pa.,-, IS — . Be it known that - of - in the county of - and state of -, is appointed, and, by these presents, duly constituted agent of the National' Fire and Marine Insurance Company, of' the city of Philadelphia, with full power to receive proposals for insurance against loss or damage by fire, in-and vicinity; 'to fix rates of. premiums, to receive moneys, and to countersign, issue and renew policies of -.insurance signed by the president and attested by the secretary of the said National Fire and Marine Insurance Company, [1221]*1221subject to the rules and regulations of the said company, and to such instructions as may, from time to time, be given by its officers. In witness whereof, the said National Fire and Marine Insurance Company have affixed their seal to these presents and have cause the same to be signed by their president and attested by their secretary, in the city of Philadelphia, this-day of-, 18 — , Simon J. Stine, President. W. D. Halfmann, Secretary.”

E.

“Know all men by these presents, that the National Fire and Marine Insurance Company, of the city of Philadelphia in the state of Pennsylvania, desiring to transact business in the commonwealth of Massachusetts in conformity with the laws hereof, hereby constitutes and appoints Charles W. Sproat, Esq., of Boston, in the county of Suffolk and commonwealth aforesaid (who is a citizen of said commonwealth and resident therein), to be its general agent, and the true and lawful attorney of said company, in and for the commonwealth of Massachusetts, upon whom all lawful processes in any action of proceeding against said company in said commonwealth may be served in like manner and with the same effect as if said company existed therein. And the said company hereby stipulates and agrees, that any lawful process against said company which is served on its said general agent and attorney, shall be of the same legal force and validity as if served on said company. This appointment, and the authority of said general agent and attorney, shall continue in force, and shall not be revoked, so long as any liability remains outstanding against said company in said commonwealth, or until another general agent and attorney is duly substituted and appointed. In witness whereof, the aforesaid company, pursuant to a resolution of its board of directors, duly passed on the first day of July, A. D. 1872 (a certified copy whereof is hereto annexed), hath caused these presents to be subscribed by its president, and countersigned by its secretary, and the corporate seal of said company to be hereunto affixed, this first day of July in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy two. Signed. Simon J. Stine, President. W. D. Halfmann, Secretary. (Fifty cent 'revenue stamp.)”

“State of Pennsylvania. County of Philadelphia, ss. — On this twenty-sixth day of July, A. D. 1872, before me, the subscriber, a commissioner for ..the commonwealth of Massachusetts, duly appointed and qualified, personally appeared the before-named Simon J. Stine, president, and W. D. Halfmann, secretary, of the National Fire and Marine Insurance Company (who- are personally known to me), and severally acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument by them subscribed; and they severally made oath that they are respectively the afore-de-scribed officers of said insurance company; that the seal affixed to said instrument is its true and proper corporate seal; and that they subscribed said instrument, and said corporate seal was affixed, by virtue of authority duly conferred by said corporation.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 F. Cas. 1218, 1875 U.S. App. LEXIS 1493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-fire-marine-ins-co-v-lester-circtdct-1875.