Ives v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from Rensselaer county court. Action by Maria Ives against the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company on a policy of insurance. From a judgment of the county court affirming a judgment of the justice of the peace, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
1Per curiam
We think that Corcoran was a managing agent for defendant, Avithin the meaning of subdivision 3 of section 431 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He had the control, subject to the direction of the home office, of the district composing the cities of Troy and Lansingburgh, and vicinity, with 9 assistant superintendents and 62 subagents subject to his orders. In that district he had the entire superintendence of all the defendant’s business. It has been well settled that subdivision 3 of section 431, supra, means, not “the,” but “a,” managing agent, and hence a corporation may have different…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Barrett v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1893
- Brayton v. New York, Lake Erie & Western RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1893
- Barrett v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.New York Supreme Court · 1890
3Cited by12 opinions
- Tauza v. . Susquehanna Coal Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Kelly v. Newark Shoe Stores Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
- Whipple v. . Prudential Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Jackson v. Schuylkill Silk MillsAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1915
- Russell v. Washington Life InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1909
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.