Parker v. Citizens Ins.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Parker v. Citizens Ins.

18 A. 524, 129 Pa. 583, 1889 Pa. LEXIS 989

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 28, 1889

DocketNo. 220

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 18 A. 524 (Parker v. Citizens Ins.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Parker v. Citizens Ins., 18 A. 524, 129 Pa. 583, 1889 Pa. LEXIS 989 (Pa. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam :

There was sufficient evidence to submit to the jury that John C. Kohne was the general agent of the defendant company. He was present at the last trial of the case in the court below, and, as such general agent, made an affidavit on behalf of the company to procure a continuance of the cause. His affidavit is something more than his statement under oath that he was the general agent. It was evidence of the fact that he was acting as the general agent of the company, and controlling its affairs. Corporations necessarily act through agents; and when they have been publicly held out as such, and their act recognized, they will not be permitted to repudiate their authority: Williams v. Getty, 31 Pa. 461; Baltimore etc. Steamboat Co. v. Brown, 54 Pa. 77; Adams Express Co. v. Schlessinger, 75 Pa. 246.

We find no error in the refusal of the court below to give a binding instruction for the defendant. The declaration was not upon the policy, but upon a special promise to pay the sum of §1,600, in consideration of which the plaintiff surrendered his policy to the agent of the company. If the plaintiff’s testimony is true, and the jury have ijpund that it was, the conduct of the defendant was not such as to inspire confidence in insurance companies. W e find no error in the rulings of the eou t upon the law, and the jury have done just what any other jury would have done under like circumstances.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam :

There was sufficient evidence to submit to the jury that John C. Kohne was the general agent of the defendant company. He was present at the last trial of the case in the court below, and, as such general agent, made an affidavit on behalf of the company to procure a continuance of the cause. His affidavit is something more than his statement under oath that he was the general agent. It was evidence of the fact that he was acting as the general agent of the company, and controlling its affairs. Corporations necessarily act through agents; and when they have been publicly held out as such, and their act recognized, they will not be permitted to repudiate their authority: Williams v. Getty, 31 Pa. 461; Baltimore etc. Steamboat Co. v. Brown, 54 Pa. 77; Adams Express Co. v. Schlessinger, 75 Pa. 246.

We find no error in the refusal of the court below to give a binding instruction for the defendant. The declaration was not upon the policy, but upon a special promise to pay the sum of §1,600, in consideration of which the plaintiff surrendered his policy to the agent of the company. If the plaintiff’s testimony is true, and the jury have ijpund that it was, the conduct of the defendant was not such as to inspire confidence in insurance companies. W e find no error in the rulings of the eou t upon the law, and the jury have done just what any other jury would have done under like circumstances.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A. 524, 129 Pa. 583, 1889 Pa. LEXIS 989, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parker-v-citizens-ins-pa-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack