Stewart v. Helvetia Swiss Fire Ins. Co.

36 P. 410, 102 Cal. 218, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 620
California Supreme Court·Decided March 30, 1894·No. No. 18134·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

The Court.

Byrnes, the local agent of defendant at Visalia, had no actual or ostensible authority to enter into a binding contract upon the part of defendant for the renewal of the policy held by plaintiff, and the proposal of plaintiff made to such agent for a renewal of said policy was, until communicated to and accepted by defendant, nothing more than a mere offer upon the [220]*220part of plaintiff to renew such policy. The fact that the agent promised to communicate the offer to defendant, and did not do so until after the loss, while it might make the agent liable to plaintiff for the damage sustained by him growing out of such neglect, did not have the effect to create a binding contract for renewal between the plaintiff and defendant.

Judgment reversed.

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

Stewart v. Helvetia Swiss Fire Ins. Co., 36 P. 410, 102 Cal. 218, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 620 (Cal. 1894).

36 P. 410 (Stewart v. Helvetia Swiss Fire Ins. Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lucas v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
58 P.2d 934 (California Court of Appeal, 1936)
McCabe Bros. v. Aetna Insurance
81 N.W. 426 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1899)
Carter v. Manhattan Life Insurance
11 Haw. 69 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1897)
O'Brien v. New Zealand Insurance
41 P. 298 (California Supreme Court, 1895)