Smith v. Glens Falls Indemnity Co.

233 A.D. 859

Opinion

Judgment reversed upon the law, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs, upon the ground that no authority was shown in the agent, C. R. Rikel, Inc., to bind the defendant on a contract with the plaintiff as broker in effecting policies of indemnity insurance (Dudley v. Perkins, 235 N. Y. 448); and that there is no sufficient evidence to make a question of fact that the services of plaintiff were the efficient and procuring cause of obtaining and writing the individual policies of indemnity insurance. (Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Co., 83 N. Y. 378, 383; Wynus v. Utz, 152 App. Div. 756; Applebaum v. Witbeck, 231 id. 297.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur; Kapper, J., dissents and votes to affirm.

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

Smith v. Glens Falls Indemnity Co., 233 A.D. 859 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

233 A.D. 859 (Smith v. Glens Falls Indemnity Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dudley v. . Perkins
139 N.E. 570 (New York Court of Appeals, 1923)
Sibbald v. . the Bethlehem Iron Company
83 N.Y. 378 (New York Court of Appeals, 1881)
Wynus v. Utz
152 A.D. 756 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1912)