Case ID: misc_34/html/0782-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Amasa Worthington, Respondent, v. The London Guarantee & Accident Co., Appellant.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, first district, borough of Manhattan.
    Ernest F. Eidlitz, for appellant.
    Bostwick, Morrell & Bates, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

We find no evidence in this case that Hall & Henshaw had authority to represent the defendant in the employment of sub-agents. Nor is there evidence sufficient to establish a ratification. The cases cited by respondent were actions brought by persons insured under policies of insurance, and have no application. If the plaintiff has a claim for commissions or damages, his remedy is against Hall & Henshaw, who employed him, and not against the defendant. The judgment being without evidence to support it, must be reversed.

Present: Andrews, P. J., O’Gorman and Blanchard, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.