The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-06-05
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
An Important Question Of lnsuranec--Wbcn
tho Contract Of Insurance IL Forfeited
Authority Of Agents.

An Important Question Of Recommendation
tho Contract Of Insurance il Forfeited
Authority Of Agents.
TAe .f1Ha Insurance Company, Plaintiff la Error,
rs. samuel N. Weoste'.-,n error in Circuit Court
for the Eastern District OF Michgan.-Mr. Chief Jus
tice Chase delivered the opinion Of the Court. The
case shown by the record ~ IN substance this -
One VIM l.. Weber, on the 25th Of September, 1850.
was and for long time had been. the agent for the
Ktna Insurance Company al East saginaw In Mich
igan, aud was duly authorized ~ MAKE assurances
by policies OF the company countersiQned by him.
self against loss by the pers Of inland navigation
To facilitate the making Of suca insurances with
promptitude the agent furnished with
blank policies duly signed 10y the president
aud secretary OF the company. and requir-
ing nothing to make them obligatory contracts en-
cept to be Glled up and coun,ersigned by him
These things being go, Webster, the plaintiff below,
sep,ewser isoo. to WeSbcr Yor insurance on the
schooner Ottoca for the residue Of the current season
OF navigation. And thereupon webber nlled up.
countersigned and delivered to Webster policy OF
insurance duly executed by the president and sec
rotary OF the company, by which s733 were insured
TO the sSth of November 1890 webster on his part,
paid The premium by an endorsed note in the usual
mode. The same schooner had previously in 1854,
been insured in like manner. on the application OF
Webster, in the same company, through the same
agent. On the 25th Of October, 1850, the schooner
~
perils covered by the policy and notice OF the
wreck and loss was duly given 70 the insurance
the p@rt Of the plsInii below ON the part Of the
defendant II was proved that Immediately AFTER the
delivery OF the policy 10y webber 10 Webster paper
partly written ana partly printed, and called an ap
pcaiion was signed by the latter at tue request or
| the former. THIS paper contained general state
| ment OF the substance OF the transaction. aud was
| also siRned by Webber. Following the signatures
| appeared this printed memorandum:-"T The tnsnr
anoe on this application IL to take eject when APP
nv - ~ norr If no m m
l surance Company, at Buffalo, New York; This
| paper was immediately transmitted by webber to
Dorr was received on the 2eh OF September but the
| was sent back to webber with q letter direct
received ana to cancel the policy This letter was
received by Weber on the "a OF October. Il also
appears nom the evidence thai Weber. apparently
at Cincinnati on the subject and seems TO have ex-
pressed in bis letter some apprehension that the
psny the reputation Of backing out from contracts
| regularly made" No attempt was made To cancel
any notice given TO webster one action Of he gen
cral agent until after the loss when webster called
| 70 give notice OF y 70 the company: Then for the
| for insurance had been rejected, and offered to
return the premium note, which webster dc.
Upon this case we are OF opinion that the liability
Of the insurance company attached, subject 70 revo
cation On the making XII and delivery Of the policy q
agent me factsl IN the case are much stronger
against the company than In that Of Perkins W. the
In that case the agent had no power 70 make insur
ance, put only 70 receive proposals aud determine
| company, that the rates and proposals should
prove satisfactory the COMPANY would Issue policy
should be binding on H. The court held thai tis
right Of the company 70 refuse rick upon such pro
poses was not arbitrary, but that the conditions
In the sbsq5eo Of frAo0 81 misconduct on Ne PER
nSwA b b spSAqant foS lnapSabse. ID ~ DE-