Ætna Insurance v. Wires
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit for insurance premiums received by the defendants as agents of the plaintiffs. The defendant Wires made no defense; the defendant Peck plead the .general issue, upon which a trial was had by the court, March Term, 1855, — Peck, J., presiding, — 1 when the following facts appeared.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit for insurance premiums received by the defendants as agents of the plaintiffs. The defendant Wires made no defense; the defendant Peck plead the .general issue, upon which a trial was had by the court, March Term, 1855, — Peck, J., presiding, — 1 when the following facts appeared. The defendants, in June, 1853, were partners and as such were the agents of the plaintiffs, and received in that capacity premiums for the plaintiffs to the amount of $ 442.22, which was subject to a deduction of $ 22.35 for the defendants’ charges as agents, leaving a balance of $419.22, due to the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Redeield, Ch. J.
I. We think it is sufficiently settled in this state that, in a suit in favor of a corporation, upon the plea’of the general issue, the plaintiff is not required to adduce proof of the corporate existence; Boston Type & S. Foundry v. Spooner, 5 Vt. 93. Such defense should be "made by way of plea in abatement or in bar.
EC. The right of the secretary to bind the company by an assignment of its dues, without recourse, upon receiving the amount, does not seem very important. If it were, we should be inclined to regard it, as matter of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bausman v. Eshleman, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County1873
- Boston Type & Stereotype Foundry v. SpoonerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1833
3Cited by5 opinions
- White River Bank v. DownerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1857
- National Bank v. CushingSupreme Court of Vermont · 1881
- Burlington Grocery Co. v. Heaphy's EstateSupreme Court of Vermont · 1924
- Union Co-Operative Store v. FumagalliSupreme Court of Vermont · 1935
- Hellman v. SchwartzAppellate Court of Illinois · 1892