From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

First Tr. Dep. v. Middlesex Mut. F. Ins. Co.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 31, 1940
31 N.E.2d 510 (N.Y. 1940)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

In First Trust (supra), a copartnership acted as agent for the defendant insurance company for whom it was authorized to issue insurance policies and collect premiums.

Summary of this case from Standard Funding v. Lewitt
See 2 Summaries

Opinion

Argued December 4, 1940

Decided December 31, 1940

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, CROSS, J.

H. Duane Bruce for appellant.

Abram G. Senior and Morgan F. Bisselle for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the ground that the fraud of the defendant's agent was not perpetrated in the course of the agent's employment. No opinion.

Concur: LEHMAN, Ch. J., LOUGHRAN, FINCH, RIPPEY, SEARS and CONWAY, JJ. Taking no part: LEWIS, J.

Summaries of

First Tr. Dep. v. Middlesex Mut. F. Ins. Co.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 31, 1940
31 N.E.2d 510 (N.Y. 1940)

In First Trust (supra), a copartnership acted as agent for the defendant insurance company for whom it was authorized to issue insurance policies and collect premiums.

Summary of this case from Standard Funding v. Lewitt

In First Trust (supra), however, where the insurance company had certified to the State Insurance Department "the good reputation and integrity of the copartnership" as the insurance company's agent, the Appellate Division held this very type of representation insufficient to support application of the doctrine of apparent authority (259 App. Div., at 82, 87-88).

Summary of this case from Standard Funding v. Lewitt
Case details for

First Tr. Dep. v. Middlesex Mut. F. Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:FIRST TRUST DEPOSIT COMPANY, Appellant, v. MIDDLESEX MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Dec 31, 1940

Citations

31 N.E.2d 510 (N.Y. 1940)
31 N.E.2d 510

Citing Cases

Standard Funding v. Lewitt

We reject plaintiff's contention that premium financing is an activity incidental to or reasonably necessary…

Rosenblatt v. Washington Cty. Coop. Ins. Co.

The only remaining misconduct of WCCIC relied upon by plaintiff on his claim for punitive damages is the…

5 Citing Cases