From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Worthington v. London Guarantee Accident Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Feb 1, 1901
34 Misc. 782 (N.Y. App. Term 1901)

Opinion

February, 1901.

Ernest F. Eidlitz, 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 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.


Summaries of

Worthington v. London Guarantee Accident Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Feb 1, 1901
34 Misc. 782 (N.Y. App. Term 1901)
Case details for

Worthington v. London Guarantee Accident Co.

Case Details

Full title:AMASA WORTHINGTON, Respondent, v . THE LONDON GUARANTEE ACCIDENT CO.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term

Date published: Feb 1, 1901

Citations

34 Misc. 782 (N.Y. App. Term 1901)