Glens Falls Insurance v. Hopkins

This was a suit by appell'ées against appellant, to recover insurance money claimed in consequence of a loss by fire. The declaration counts upon two policies, the first of which had exqiired before the loss, but, as alleged, had been renewed by a parol agreement. The second was issued after the fire and antedated, as is claimed, in pursuance of a parol agreement made before tire fire.

The proof shows that one Whitloclc was general manager of appellant’s business at Chicago with power to appoint sub-agents. In pursuance of this power he had appointed aqipellee Hopkins as the agent of appellant…