John M. Townsend, Resp’t, v. Mary G. Tompkins, App’lt.(Supreme Court, General Term, Second DepartmentHeadnote
Services — Insurance agent not entitled to recover of. owner of PREMISES FOR WRITING POLICY.Plaintiff, who was an insurance agent, at defendant’s request effected an insurance on her property, and delivered the policy, which was returned before it took effect. Held, that he could not recover of defendant for his services in writing the policy.
Appeal from judgment of county court, affirming judgment ■of a justice of the peace.
Action for work, labor and services. Plaintiff is an insurance agent and. claims that defendant authorized him to insure her property for $1,500. The premium, as agreed upon, was to be twelve dollars. The insurance policy then on the property would expire on November 10th, and defendant promised to let the plaintiff know about the insurance before the 8th. Plaintiff delivered this policy on the 1st of November, but it was not to take effect until the 10th. The policy was returned on the 8th of November and cancelled. Plaintiff’s commissions on a premium of twelve dollars was $2.40.
Judgment for $2.40 was rendered in favor of plaintiff, which was affirmed by the county court.
W. Farrington, for app’lt; Lewis Baker, for resp’t.
The plaintiff commenced this action in a court of a justiceT)f the peace to recover the value of his services in writing a policy of fire insurance for the defendant, and upon the-trial it appeared that he was an agent of a fire insurance company and made out a policy of insurance for the defendant and delivered the same to her, which she returned in a few days. The justice rendered a judgment for the plaintiff which was affirmed on appeal to the county court, and the defendant has appealed from the judgment of affirmance to this court.
Our conclusion is that the defendant incurred no obligation to the plaintiff in the transactions she had with him respecting the insurance. She dealt with the insurance company through the plaintiff as the intervening agent.
The judgment should, therefore, be reversed, with costs. Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J.', concur.