Case Name: Amasa Worthington, Respondent, v. The London Guarantee & Accident Co., Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1901-02
Citations: 34 Misc. 782
Docket Number: 
Parties: Amasa Worthington, Respondent, v. The London Guarantee & Accident Co., Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 34
Pages: 782–782

Head Matter:
Amasa Worthington, Respondent, v. The London Guarantee & Accident Co., Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, first district, borough of Manhattan.
Ernest F. Eidlitz, 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 sub-agents. 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.
Present: Andrews, P. J., O'Gorman and Blanchard, JJ.
Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.