Partridge v. Insurance Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
Error to the Circuit Court for the District of Missouri.; the case apparently having been thus: In January, 1867, one Winslow being agent for the State of Missouri of the Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut, in the business of soliciting persons to insure and keep insured in that compauy, Partridge made an arrangement with him to go into partnership with him in the agency; and Winslow having written to the company accordingly, the company in reply…
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court for the District of Missouri.; the case apparently having been thus: In January, 1867, one Winslow being agent for the State of Missouri of the Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut, in the business of soliciting persons to insure and keep insured in that compauy, Partridge made an arrangement with him to go into partnership with him in the agency; and Winslow having written to the company accordingly, the company in reply tell him that there was a Mr. Jones — “now the company’s agent for Minnesota, and a man second to none in the West for…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Miller
The question did not arise whether the custom which the plaintiff offered to prove could have been proved as the measure of his compensation, in the absence of any express contract, because the plaintiff had introduced in evidence a letter from the defendant in reference to this compensation, under which he said he had acted in taking the policies for which he now claimed the additional commission. There was no question as to the amount, or percentage, or premium, which was to be paid under this letter. The plaintiff stated that he had retained a certain percentage, which \w.as that allowed…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Partridge v. The Insurance CompanySupreme Court of the United States · 1873