The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-10-18
. ~~ .
 HEAD NOTES OF THE DECISIONS OF THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT.

INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH
 AMERICA V. THORNTON. ct al.
 Action upon Verbal Contract of Fire
 Court of Pike.
 l. Principal and agent; when agent has authority to bind sub-agent-Wnere, m the proper transaction and carrying on of business committed to an agent, 1t is necessary to have the services or sub agents, such agent has authority to ap- point sub-agents, and the acts performed by sub-agents so appointed, in the dis charge of the duties conferred on the
 agent are binding upon the principal.
 ,. Same; when ego mt of insurance com pany has power to appoint suh-agents
 pany.-Where. in a certificate of authority
 issued bv an insurance company to its
 agent, he Is invested with full power to
 receive proposals for insurance against
 loss or damage by fire" within a certain
 territory ito fix rates of premiums, to re-
 ceive monies and to countersign. issue
 renew and consent to the transfer and
 assignment of policies of insurance
 and in all manner to attend to the busi-
 ness and duties of such agency, subject to the rules and regula uons Of said company" and 1t Is further stipulated in said agents commission that ''all poli- cies shall be null and void and of no bind-
 ing effect upon this company If issued
 upon property not situated within the
 shall reside. and for which he is appoint | ed," such agent has the right and au- | thority to appoint sub-agents and to au- | thorize them to solicit and receive appli- cations for insurance within the des1g- mated territory, to fix the rates of pre- | miums and forward the applications, on which, If approved. the appointing agent | Is to issue policies insuring against loss | from the date named in the application; and the sub-agent so appointed, Is the agent of the company for the purposes | named and within the given territory ano l his acts, while acting in such capacity | are the acts of the company. and plnoint upon it. | cation has been made to such sub-agen' | authorized to issue the policy. the com pany Is liable for loss occurring be | fore the issuance of the policy and after | the date named in the application TOT the | commencement of the risk.
 1 f. Same; same; same.-1n such case | where there Is a conflict in the evidence | tending to show whether or not the pol | icy issued was within the territory as | signed to such agent, 1t Is question foi | the jury to determine whether the prop | erty so insured was situated within sucn | territory; and if the jury should deter.
 mine that the property insured was moi | within the designated territory. the in
 surance company is not liable for loss ol | injury by fire. (Tyson, J., dissentingo . l 5. Same; same; admissibility of evi | dence.-In an action upon verbal con | tract of insurance, where 1t is shown tha | a certain named person was the defend | ants general agent within designated | territory, and that the contract was made | with the sub-agent appointed by him. anc
 there is question as to whether or no' ritory given to the general agent, acts | and declarations of such general agent l tending to show the limits of the terri
 tory embraced in his agency, are admis | sible in evidence.
 | Reversed and remanded.
 | Opinion by Mcclellan, c. J.