Hyperlawhypertext legal database Worthington v. London Guarantee & Accident Co. 68 N.Y.S. 1151

← Cases

Worthington v. London Guarantee & Accident Co.

68 N.Y.S. 1151 Court N.Y. App. Term Decision date 1901-02-25 English

Contents

Majority

p. 1151
WORTHINGTON, Respondent, v. LONDON GUARANTEE & ACCIDENT CO., Appellant.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
February 25, 1901.)

Headnote

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.

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.