Estes v. Home Manufacturers & Traders Mutual Insurance
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, on insurance policies upon the plaintiffs’ stock of goods in their store in New York city. Facts agreed. The plaintiffs applied to Abraham Barker, an insurance broker in New York city, for the insurance, and he sent the application to Morrill & Danforth, of Concord, N. H. Morrill of this firm was the secretary of the defendant corporations, Danforth was the treasurer, and the firm were their agents.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, on insurance policies upon the plaintiffs’ stock of goods in their store in New York city. Facts agreed. The plaintiffs applied to Abraham Barker, an insurance broker in New York city, for the insurance, and he sent the application to Morrill & Danforth, of Concord, N. H. Morrill of this firm was the secretary of the defendant corporations, Danforth was the treasurer, and the firm were their agents. They wrote the policies under date of May 16, 1890, and sent them to Barker, and charged the premiums to him on their books. They had previously issued policies upon similar…
1Opinion of the CourtChase, J.
The premiums were paid to Barker before the loss occurred, but not until after the expiration of thirty days from the date of the policies. Whether Barker was the defendants’ “ duly authorized agent ” to receive them, and whether the defendants by their dealings with him in relation to these and other policies waived their right to avoid the policies for the nonpayment of premiums within the thirty-days limit, are questions of fact. There is evidence from which a jury can properly find in favor of the plaintiffs upon both questions. Gaysville Manufacturing Company v. Insurance Company, ante,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Farber v. American Automobile InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1915
- Colby v. CampbellSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1900