Phoenix Insurance v. Banks
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division; Guy Fulh, Judge; 1. The duty of an agent is to follow the instructions of his principal. 100 N. W. 526. Of course, an agent -.may show that the damages are nominal, or very small, but not by demurrer. Story on Ag.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division; Guy Fulh, Judge; 1. The duty of an agent is to follow the instructions of his principal. 100 N. W. 526. Of course, an agent -.may show that the damages are nominal, or very small, but not by demurrer. Story on Ag. (8'ed.) 281. In this case, appellant had a right to show to a jury that, had its agents demanded the additional premium insisted on the appellant would not have remained bound upon this risk. 44 N. W. 372; 79 la. 245. 2. Where an agent violates, exceeds or neglects his instructions and loss results, he is liable. 92 N. W. 226;…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
The plaintiff, Phoenix Insurance Company, of Hartford, Connecticut, has been doing a general fire insurance business in the State of Arkansas, and defendants were its local agents at Fordyce, Arkansas, with authority to countersign, issue and deliver policies and contracts of insurance subject to the approval and instructions of the plaintiff.
Defendants issued to the Arkansas Lumber Company a policy of fire insurance in plaintiff company and delivered same with an endorsement thereon waiving, in favor of a certain railway company, a provision in the policy referred to as the subrogation…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State Insurance v. JamisonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1890
3Cited by1 opinion
- Pennsylvania Millers Mutual Ins. Co. v. WaltonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1963