Legal Opinion

Munro v. Bowers

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided February 25, 1936PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtQua, J.

Munro was a general agent of Lloyd’s Insurance Company of America, hereinafter called Lloyd’s. The defendant’s intestate, one Gould, acted as an insurance broker. Lloyd’s, Munro and Gould did business in accordance with an established course of dealing under which Gould solicited business in Lloyd’s, and on the issuing of a policy, Lloyd’s billed the premium to Munro, who billed it to Gould, who billed it to the assured or collected it from the assured when the policy was delivered. Gould had no direct dealings with Lloyd’s, but settled his accounts with Munro semimonthly. Lloyd’s ceased to…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Dillon v. Town of FraminghamMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
  2. Taylor v. LowellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
  3. Union Mutual Casualty Insurance v. Insurance Budget Plan, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
  4. Monitor Mutual Fire Insurance v. YoungMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Middlesex Insurance Co. v. Koritz (In Re Koritz)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · 1979
  2. District Agency Co. v. Suburban Delivery Service, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1961
  3. John Roach, Jr., Inc. v. PingpankNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1956
  4. Weathers v. JarvisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API