Case Name: WORTHINGTON, Respondent, v. LONDON GUARANTEE & ACCIDENT CO., Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1901-02-25
Citations: 68 N.Y.S. 1151
Docket Number: 
Parties: WORTHINGTON, Respondent, v. LONDON GUARANTEE & ACCIDENT CO., Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 68
Pages: 1151–1151

Head Matter:
WORTHINGTON, Respondent, v. LONDON GUARANTEE & ACCIDENT CO., Appellant.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
February 25, 1901.)
Action by Amasa Worthington against the London Guarantee & Accident Company. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Ernest F. Bidlitz, for appellant.
Bostwick, Morrell & Bates, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We find no evidence in this case that Hall & Henshaw had authority to represent the defendant in the employment of subagents; 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. Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.