Putnam Tool Co. v. Fitchburg Mutual Fire Insurance

13 N.E. 902, 145 Mass. 265, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 68
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 23, 1887
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 13 N.E. 902 (Putnam Tool Co. v. Fitchburg Mutual Fire Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Putnam Tool Co. v. Fitchburg Mutual Fire Insurance, 13 N.E. 902, 145 Mass. 265, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 68 (Mass. 1887).

Opinion

W. Allen, J.

Lockey and Allison were special agents for the defendant, to receive and forward to it applications for insurance, and to receive from it and deliver to the parties policies of insurance, and to receive the premiums thereon. They were not authorized to make or to vary contracts of insurance. The word “agents,” printed on the calendar furnished to them by the defendant, does not imply more than this; but if it were held to be an advertisement of them as general agents, it would not import authority in them to waive the express provision of the contract that notice of removal should be given in writing. Kyte v. Commercial Assurance Co. 144 Mass. 43, and cases cited. Eastern Railroad v. Relief Ins. Co. 105 Mass. 570.

It is not stated in the auditor’s report that the officers of the defendant did anything at the meeting of the adjusters of the companies in which the property was insured which would amount to a waiver of the provision in the policy, or estop the defendant from claiming the benefit of it. It is found that the amount of the loss was discussed at the meeting, and that the plaintiff agreed to a reduction on the supposition that the defendant would pay its share of the loss; but it is not found that the defendant’s officers took part in the discussion, or knew that the plaintiff supposed that the defendant would pay its proportion of the loss, or said or did anything to create that supposition. No facts are found, and none can be inferred, which raise the question whether the officers had at that time authority expressly or by their acts to waive the provision.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Blair v. National Reserve Insurance
199 N.E. 337 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1935)
Rowell v. Fireman's Insurance Co.
141 S.E. 20 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1927)
Graham v. Standard Fire Ins. Co.
112 S.E. 88 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1922)
Mutual Protective League v. Walker
173 S.W. 802 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1915)
Merchants' Planters' Ins. Co. v. Marsh
1912 OK 388 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Western Nat. Ins. v. Marsh
125 P. 1094 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Western Nat. Ins. Co. v. Marsh
1912 OK 302 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Atwood v. Caledonian American Insurance
92 N.E. 32 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1910)
Sweeney v. Montana Central Railway Co.
65 P. 912 (Montana Supreme Court, 1901)
Dale v. Continental Insurance
31 S.W. 266 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1895)
Parker v. Rochester German Insurance
39 N.E. 179 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1895)
Porter v. United States Life Insurance
35 N.E. 678 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1893)
Armstrong v. Agricultural Insurance
29 N.E. 991 (New York Court of Appeals, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 N.E. 902, 145 Mass. 265, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 68, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/putnam-tool-co-v-fitchburg-mutual-fire-insurance-mass-1887.