The New York herald., 1878-11-02
THE COURTS.
An Important Decision Relating to
Insurance Agents.
MARITAL MISERIES.
Statute of Limitations as Affecting Suits
Against the City.

The Empire City Fire Insurance Company brought
suit In the Marine Court against the Howe Machine
Company 70 recover $I36 81 premium overdue on
insurance policies issued defendant In favor OF
itself and the Indiana Manufacturing Company. Tho
case came to trial before Judge Sheridan jury,
the defendant putting In the plea that It had
nection with the Indiana Manufacturing Company and
therefore was not responsible for premiums on It's
policies and as for It's responsibility 1t had long
ago paid the premium sued Tor to the agent
or broker who delivered the policies. The Judge, In
taking The case from the jury, stated the
case and the law governing the important
point involved very clearly, follows :''The insur-
ance was effected through brokor to whom plain tin
delivered the policies and who collected the prem
iums from defendant, but did not pay them over TO
plaintiff. and it now seeks to hold defendant on tho
ground that the broker Its agent under clause
In the policy which provides that it part Of this
contract that any other than the assured who
may have procured this insurance to be by this
company shall DO deemed the agent Of tho assured
named In this policy and not OF this company under
any circumstances whatever. or 10 any transaction
relating 10 TINS Insurance. IL mas been decided by
the Court OF Appeals, In Rohrbacn vs. Tue Germania
Fire Insurance Company aud Alexander vs. rne Ger
mania Fire Insurance Company, that this clause is
operative oinding upon the Cd In the case
ol Rohr0ach VS. The Germania Fire Insurance Com
pany the insured transmitted TO the agent Of the
company all The iacts and the aaent omitted from the
polcy certain Of them which he did NOT deem essen
Lai, and II WAS held that the agents omissions were
breach OF warranty on the part OF the insured anu
that he couu II this strict rule IL
applied to the insured, tho insurer should DO
strictly bound by the terms Of the policy and BY
another clause is provided that the company shall
not b. liable by virtue 0 this policy any renewal
thereof until the premium therefor DO actually paid,
the premiums In tn:s case never having been paio,
the policies wero nero waste paper In the hands oi
the doiendaut. Tho plainti0 was not liable under
them because the pay nent Of tho premium
CONDITION precedent TO the contract and, not being
liable, there no consideration passing to tho de-
aware II has been held tnat credit be giveH
tor tho premium. but II not pretended tnat credit
gwen IN TINS The policies were written and
sent by plaintif TO the broker, and 1t must be
erred that this was It's usual course OF business with
the broker Policies are generally ELECTED through
the agency OF brokers, AMI the insurance broker
keeps running accounts with both parties, ana be-
comes the mutual agent OF both the underwater and
the insured.n After stating still moro at length
recognized authorities on the question OF agency and
the OF this case, the Judge continues :'.The
plantin knew that Il was dealing with tue defer
shroQgn broker; IL knew that tue terms OF the
could come to the knowledge OF the defend
until IL received the policies from his hands,
that they Acknowledged tue receipt Of lhe premiums,
and BY delivering the policies 10 MIN without receiv
lug the premiums put it IN his power TO impose upon
The defendant by representing that he compiiod
with It's conditions IL seems TO me that under
circumstances This Is . proper case to invoke the
principle that, where one OF two innocent parties
suffer from the act OF q tnird, the shall
suffer who has 0led such third person to do
The defendant Is entitled to judgment ior dis
missal OF the complaint, with coste."