Case Name: William F. Stoker & al. versus George Eaton
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1861
Citations: 50 Me. 219
Docket Number: 
Parties: William F. Stoker & al. versus George Eaton.
Judges: Tenney, C. J., Cutting, May, Goodenow and Davis, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Maine Reports
Volume: 50
Pages: 219–220

Head Matter:
William F. Stoker & al. versus George Eaton.
If an agent neglects Ms directions, to insure a cargo sliipped to Mm, and it arrives safely, although he would be liable to the owner for damages in case of loss, he cannot maintain an action against the owner for a premium on insurance.
Reported from Nisi Prius by Cutting, J.
Assumpsit to recover §48,18 premium on an alleged insurance of a cargo of lumber from St. John to Waldoboro’.
Plaintiffs offered to prove that defendant, who is a merchant in St. John, N. B., shipped to Waldoboro’, where plaintiffs reside, a cargo of lumber consigned to plaintiffs. That when said vessel was ready for sea, defendant telegraphed to plaintiffs, who had, prior to that time, been his agents for the sale of lumber, to insure the cargo in some Marine Insurance Company.
Plaintiffs admit that they did not procure any insurance upon said cargo, and that it arrived safely at Waldoboro’. But they contend that they were liable to defendant for neglecting to insure, and thereby became themselves the insurers, and are entitled to the usual premium.
Kennedy, for the plaintiffs.
Gould, for the defendant.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
Rice, J.
The plaintiffs admit that it was their duty to have procured insurance upon the cargo of the defendant, consigned to them,'according to his instructions, and that they neglected so to do.
For such negligence, in case of loss, they would have been responsible to the defendant for all the losses sustained by want of insurance. Story's Agency, § 190.
But from such negligence no action could arise to them to recover the premium, for the reason that no contract of insurance existed between them and the defendant, either express or implied. 1 Dúer on Ins., 61, c. 11.
On the contrary, in case of loss, they would have been liable to the defendant in damages for neglect of duty, to the foil amount of the insurance which they should have effected for his benefit, less the premium. De Tastett v. Cronsillut, 2 Wash. C. C. R., 132. Plaintiffs nonsuit.
Tenney, C. J., Cutting, May, Goodenow and Davis, JJ., concurred.