Case Name: Reilly, Appellant, v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1919-02-24
Citations: 264 Pa. 61
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 231
Parties: Reilly, Appellant, v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America.
Judges: Before Brown, C. J., Stewart, Moschzisker, Walling and Simpson, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 264
Pages: 61–63

Head Matter:
Reilly, Appellant, v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America.
Insurance — Foreign insurance company — License of agent — Collection of commissions by agent.
, Where a contract between a foreign insurance company and its agent provided for commissions to the agent, on insurance written by him, such agent cannot recover commissions on insurance written during a period when he had not been authorized by the Insurance Commissioner of the State of Pennsylvania to .transact business in the State as the agent of the defendant.
Argued Feb. 3, 1919.
Appeal, No. 231, Jan. T., 1919, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Montgomery Co., March T., 1917, No. 99, for defendant n. o. v. in case of Edward A. Reilly to the use of John Scott, Jr., and Samuel S. Hartranft, Administrator d. b. n. of Linn Hartranft, deceased, v. Prudential Insurance Company of America.
Before Brown, C. J., Stewart, Moschzisker, Walling and Simpson, JJ.
Affirmed.
Assumpsit for commissions by an insurance agent against a foreign insurance company. Before Miller, J.
At the trial it appeared that on May 17,1900, plaintiff obtained an application to defendant company from Charles T. Schoen for a large policy of insurance on the latter’s life. Plaintiff was appointed an agent of the company on June 1, 1900. On the same day the policy was delivered and the premium paid. On June 14, 1900, a State license was procured by the plaintiff to act as defendant’s agent. The contract was terminated by mutual consent on July 21, 1901. Suit was brought to recover commissions on the Schoen and other policies. Verdict for plaintiff for $7,309.73.
The court, in an opinion by Miller, J., entered judgment for defendant n. o. v. The last paragraph of the opinion was as follows:
We, therefore, in conclusion and in order that the single reason that compels our action may be briefly set down at the end of this opinion, repeat that the plaintiffs cannot recover and the defendant is entitled to judgment only because when Mr. Reilly obtained the Schoen risk, he had not been authorized by the insurance commissioner to transact business in this State as an agent of the defendant foreign insurance company.
Plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned was in entering judgment for defendant n. o. v.
Aaron S. Swartz, Jr., with him John M. Dettra, Samuel H. High and Montgomery Evans, for appellant.
Frederick J. Shoyer, with him Henry Arronson, for appellee.
February 24, 1919:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
This judgment is affirmed for the single reason given by the learned court below for entering it.