Millick v. Peterson
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania
This was an action on the case, to recover a premium of insurance paid by plaintiffs JMillick & Burger] for defendant [Peterson] on a policy effected on the Phoenix, the property of defendant, in an insurance office at New-York. The order for insurance was given by W. Wiseman, without mentioning the defendant: and the policy stated W. Wiseman as the person insured. Evidence was given to prove that Wiseman acted as the agent of the defendant,' in ordering the insurance.
Read the full summary
This was an action on the case, to recover a premium of insurance paid by plaintiffs JMillick & Burger] for defendant [Peterson] on a policy effected on the Phoenix, the property of defendant, in an insurance office at New-York. The order for insurance was given by W. Wiseman, without mentioning the defendant: and the policy stated W. Wiseman as the person insured. Evidence was given to prove that Wiseman acted as the agent of the defendant,' in ordering the insurance. Wise-man sent to the plaintiff his note for the premium, as usual, payable In twelve months; but before the note became due,…
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT
expressed an opinion, that better evidence could be given of the payment of the premium. That inferior evidence ought not to be left to the jury, when it appeared that there existed better in the power of the plaintiff. If he has paid the note he gave for the premium, he ought to produce it, or prove it to have been paid by other evidence. But on recommendation of the court, a juror was withdrawn.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Barron v. MasonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1858