Broker.

preparing the application, or as to any representations as to the character and effect of the statements therein. *State Ins. Co. v. Jordan, 19 Ins. L. J. 657; 45 N. W. Rep. 792; 29 Neb. 514.

79.- A broker cannot as agent of the company waive condition requiring prepayment of the premium. Marland v. Royal Ins. Co., 71 Pa. 393. 80.- Evidence showed that an insur74. An agent of an insurance com-ance broker was in the habit of bringing pany authorized to solicit insurance, applications for insurance to the company obtain policies, and collect premiums, in behalf of others. The practice was, who makes out an application as having when policies were issued upon such apbeen made by an applicant, without the plications, to charge the cash premiums latter's knowledge or consent, and with- to the broker, who collected them of the out any authority of the applicant to make assured, and accounted for them to the such application or the statements con- company in monthly settlements. In a tained therein, thereby acts as the agent suit by the company against the broker to of the company, and not of the insured. | recover certain premiums paid, held, that *State Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 19 Ins. L. J. 966; 24 Pac. Rep. 333; 14 Col. 499.

75.- Insurance agents having no authority to place insurance for a particular company, but who are in the habit of submitting applications to it for its approval, receiving from the company part of the premium as compensation, are the company's agents so as to charge the company with their knowledge in respect to premises insured. *Indiana Ins. Co. v. Hartwell, 123 Ind. 177; 19 Ins. L. J. 824; 24 N. East. Rep. 100.

76. The solicitor of the company will, for the purposes of any disclosure, be held to be its agent, notwithstanding a clause to the effect that he shall be deemed the agent of the assured in any transaction relating to the insurance. *Smith v. Home Ins. Co., 47 Hun, 30; 14 N. Y. S. Rep. 106.

the evidence was competent to show course of dealing between the parties, the effect of which was to make the broker the agent of the company for the purpose of collecting the premiums. That company could not recover of the assured after payment to the broker, and that the money collected by latter was received by him to the use of the company. Insolvency of company is no defense to such an action. Monitor Ins. Co. v. Young, 111 Mass. 537.

81.- The knowledge of insurance brokers is not the knowledge of the company so as to effect an estoppel. McFarland v. Peabody Ins. Co., 6 W. Va. 425.

82.- An insurance broker or solicitor has no authority to make binding contract of renewal, or waive condition as to prepayment of premium. Hambleton v. Home Ins. Co., 6 Bissell, 91 (U. S. Cir.)

241.

77.— When a soliciting agent's act in 83.- When a policy is issued to a making an endorsement upon a particular broker it cannot be returned by him and policy has been ratified by the company a new one substituted in its place, without or its general agent, and then delivered consent of the assured, or by his authorto the insured, the soliciting agent be-ity. Bennett v. City Ins. Co., 115 Mass. comes thereby an accredited agent as to that particular risk, and what he says is competent and binding on the company as if he had been its general agent. The company thereby clothes him with an apparent authority upon which insured can rely, even if beyond his actual authority. *Phænix Ins. Co. v. Wachter, 20 Ins. L. J. 889 (Pa.) See No. 69.

78. Broker. Soliciting agent or broker may be the agent of the company, and clause in policy making him agent of assured cannot operate to change his character. Commercial Ins. Co. v. Ives, 56 Ill. 402.

84.- Clause in policy making person who procures the insurance the agent of the assured in any transaction relating to the insurance, does not make such person the agent of the assured to receive notice of its termination. White v. Connecticut Ins. Co., 120 Mass. 330.

85. An insurance broker may be regarded by the company as clothed with full authority to act for the assured in procuring, modifying, or cancelling a policy, and his acts in respect to the policy are same as if done by assured. Standard Oil Co. v. Triumph Ins. Co., 64 N. Y.

Broker.

93.- Agent who takes an application 87.- A broker or solicitor may be the on a form or blank sent to him by the agent of the company, and a clause in company for the purpose, through a firm policy making him the agent of assured of insurance brokers, is the agent of the cannot operate to change his character company, notwithstanding clause in polor status. Bassell v. American Fire Ins.icy making him agent of assured. The Co., 2 Hughes, 531 (U. S. Cir.) company is bound by his knowledge.

88. The delivery of a policy to a Partridge v. Commercial Fire Ins. Co., broker for purpose of delivery to the as- 17 Hun, 95 (N. Y.) sured, constitutes the former the agent of the company in receiving the premium.plication to a broker, it is sufficient to esCahill v. Andes Ins. Co., 5 Bissell, 211 (U. S. Cir.) S. P. Planters Ins. Co. v. Myers, 55 Miss. 479.

Broker.

Fire Ins. Co., 15 Ins. L. J. 466; 1 Cent.
Rep. 119; 110 Pa. 144.

105.- A broker entrusted by company with policy for purpose of delivery, is its agent for such purpose, and also to receive the premium. Lebanon Mutual Ins. Co.

99. Application for a policy having been made in writing to company, it has no right to rely on any verbal representations or statements made by a messenger or clerk sent by the broker to its agent, nor to assume that such statements or representations are made with knowledge | v. Erb, 16 Ins. L. J. 47; 2 Cent. Rep. 783; and consent of the assured. Dolliver v. St. Joseph Fire Ins. Co., 10 Ins. L. J. 380; 131 Mass. 39.

112 Pa. 149.

106.- The insurer is authorized to assume that the party with whom he dealt in effecting insurance has power to make a change beneficial to the insured. Martin v. Tradesman's Ins. Co., 2 Cent. Rep. 514; 101 N. Y. 498.

100. A clause in an insurance policy that if a broker obtains the policy he shall be taken as the agent of assured in any transaction relating to the insurance, cannot overcome the fact that the broker 107.- An insurance broker was held so may have acted as agent of the insurance far the agent of the assured that notice to company in some matter connected with him of the cancellation of the policy was the policy as delivering the same and notice to the assured. Stone v. Franklin collecting the premium. Newark Ins. Ins. Co., 7 Cent. Rep. 749; 105 N. Y. 543; Co. v. Sammons, 110 Ill. 166; aff'g, 11 Ill. | 12 N. East. Rep. 45. App. 230. See No. 103. Note. The lower court does not appear to be affirmed on the propositions of law; the judgment seems to have been affirmed because the finding of the lower court as to the facts was conclusive.

108.- Ratification of agent's or broker's acts in accepting policy obtained by him, see Atlantic Ins. Co. v. Carten, 58 Md. 337.

109. The mere delivery of a policy to a broker, and payment to him of a com101.— A broker who under no employ-mission, do not constitute him the agent ment by the company, effects insurance of the insurer. *Security Ins. Co. v. Mette, for a commission, is not the agent of the 27 Ill. App. 324. company in such a sense as to bind the latter by notice of other insurance. Royal Ins. Co. v. McCrea et al., 11 Ins. L. J. 508; 8 Lea, 531 (Tenn.)

110.- An agent who procured the insurance can be regarded only as the agent of the insured, where he does not appear to have had any authority to make any 102.- The authority of a broker or contract on behalf of the insurer. *Conagent to procure insurance terminates tinental Ins. Co. v. Allen, 26 Ill. App. with the execution of the policy; subse-576. quent notice to him of cancellation does not bind the insured. Grace v. American Central Ins. Co., 109 U. S. 278; 13 Ins. L. J. 127; rev'g, 16 Blatch. 433.

103.- Broker and agent of insured in procuring the policy may be the agent | of the company in delivering it and in collecting the premium. Sammons v. Newark Fire Ins. Co., 13 Ins. L. J. 837 (III.) See No. 100.

111. An insurance broker who pretends to insure property in a company having no existence is himself liable for any loss. Vann v. Downing, 48 Phila. Leg. Int. 264; 28 W. N. C. 259; 10 Pa. Co. Ct. 59.

112.- A broker who as agent of the assured procured the policy is the latter's agent as to subsequent installments of premiums paid to the broker, under a provision in the policy that persons other than the assured procuring the policy shall be deemed the agent of the assured, and not of the company, in any transaction relating to the insurance. *Wilber v. Williamsburgh City Ins. Co., 122 N. Y. 439; 25 N. East. Rep. 926.

104. When policy is countersigned and delivered as a valid instrument by company's agent to a broker who delivers it and receives the premium in usual course of business, company is estopped from pleading that it did not receive the premium. Universal Fire Ins. Co. v. Block, 15 Ins. L. J. 219; 1 Cent. Rep. 554; 113.- An insurance broker soliciting 109 Pa. 535; Mutual F. Ins. Co. v. Block, insurance business, who upon the accept16 Ins. L. J. 649; Riley v. Commonwealth | ance of a risk receives a policy from the

Clerks and Sub-Agents.

company for the assured, has no other tracts of insurance and issue policies, canoffice than to deliver it for the company not delegate their authority to another. and to collect the premium, and cannot If assured takes a policy signed by "J. bind the company, retroactively or pres- W. Hicksham, agent, per Will. W. Kerr," ently, in transactions relating to the in- it is sufficient to put him upon his guard surance. *Allen v. German-American as to the extent of authority. He has no Ins. Co., 33 N. Y. S. Rep. 216; 19 Ins. L. right to take the policy and presume that J. 979; 25 N. East. Rep. 309; 123 N. Y. 6. Kerr was the agent of the company. 114.- A mere insurance broker cannot McClure v. Mississippi Valley Ins. Co., 4 be converted into an agent of the com- Mo. App. 148. pany without evidence of some action on the part of the company or of facts from which a general authority to represent it may be fairly inferred. Id.

115.- An insurance broker is the agent for the insurer only as to the premium, and is the agent for the insured in effecting the policy and in everything necessary to be done in consequence of it; and his knowledge as to any matter connected with the effecting of the insurance is not imputable to the company. *East Texas F. Ins. Co. v. Brown, 82 Tex. 631; 18 S. W. Rep. 713.

120. In the appointment of local agents by an insurance company there is no implied authority to them to authorize any other parties to act for them. Summers v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 6 Duval, 19 (Can. Sup.)

121. A general agent authorized to make contracts, countersign and issue policies, does not exceed his authority in appointing sub-agents to solicit, receive and forward applications to him. Such sub-agents are the agents of the company so far as the application is concerned and it seems may give credit for the premium. 115a.- An insurance broker, through If an application is received by the genwhose neglect or omission to pay the eral agent and is put one side to have a premium, an insurance obtained for a cus-policy written in its order, and a fire tomer fails, is himself liable for the amount occur before it is written company is of a subsequent loss as damages. *Cris- liable for the loss. Krum v. Jefferson well v. Riley, 21 Ins. L. J. 763; 30 N. Fire Ins. Co., 13 Ins. L. J. 122; 40 Ohio St. East. Rep. 1,101 (Ind.) 225. It should be noted that the opinion

116. Clerks and sub-agents. Where of the court in this case lays great stress it is stipulated in a policy of insurance upon the knowledge of the officers of the "that it shall not be valid until counter-company of the course of business, and signed by the agent," a policy signed by there was evidence from which it might "B. for the agent," is void. Lynn v. Bur- be inferred that there was an acceptance goyne, 13 B. Monroe, 400 (Ky.) the application by the general

117.- An agent can authorize his clerk to contract for risks, to deliver policies, to collect premiums, and to take payment of premiums in cash or securities, and to give credit; the act of the clerk in all such cases is the act of the agent, and binds the company. Bodine v. Exchange Fire Ins. Co., 51 N. Y. 117; s. P. Eclectic Life Ins. Co. v. Fahrenkrug, 68 Ill. 463.

118. The rule that an agent cannot delegate his authority to act does not apply to mere ministerial acts to be performed. It is not necessary that the agent should do such acts in person; if he directs the act to be done or with a full knowledge of the act adopts it as his own, it is sufficient. Grady v. American Central Ins. Co., 60 Mo. 116.

of

agent.

122. It is presumed that the general agent in New York of a foreign insurance company has power to appoint subagents commensurate to the business carried on under his supervision. Kuney v. Amazon Ins. Co., 36 Hun, 66 (N. Y.)

123. The acts of a general agent of an insurance company, through his subagent, bind the company. Lingenfelter v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 1 West. Rep. 695; 19 Mo. App. 252.

124. If the agent authorizes another, for him and in his name, to solicit applications and collect premiums, the company is bound. Id.

125. If the agent receives and accepts a proposition for a policy obtained 119.- Agents authorized to make con- through his sub-agent, the company is

bound by the contract. cited. Id. 701.

Authority of Agent.

Authorities volving the exercise of judgment and discretion, especially with respect to the waiver of forfeitures; and the trust cannot be delegated to another. *Waldman v. North British Mercantile Ins. Co., 20 Ins. L. J. 353; 8 So. Rep. 666; 91 Ala. 170.

126.- Though the agent cannot delegate his agency, he may employ clerks and sub-agents, and their acts will bind his principal. Authorities cited. Id.

127. An insurance company is responsible for the acts and statements not only of its acknowledged agents but also of others who aid in the transaction of its business, and whose acts it avails itself of. *Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Hart, 39 Ill. App. 517; following Continental Ins. Co. v. Ruckman, 127 Ill. 364.

133.- A provision in an insurance policy, that "only such persons as shall hold the commission of this company" shall be considered as its agents in any transaction relating to the insurance, will not prevent the employment of clerks by the authorized agents of such company, who may act in behalf of such

128.- If the agent of an insurance agents and bind the company in the company deputize his clerk to examine proper scope of their employment. *Arff certain property and report upon it, and v. Star F. Ins. Co., 10 L. R. A. 609; 20 to write out a policy thereon, and the Ins. L. J. 112; 34 N. Y. S. Rep. 366; 25 N. clerk, while intending to write the name East. Rep. 1,073; 125 N. Y. 57. of the true owner, writes that of her husband, by a clerical error and mistake caused by the husband's name happen- 135. Authority of agent. Where an ing to be before him, such mistake will agent, entrusted with blank policies, and not defeat the true owner's right to re-authorized to effect insurances "for a parcover. *Deitz v. Providence Washington ticular city and its vicinity," insured Ins. Co., 11 S. E. Rep. 50; 33 W. Va. 526.

129.- An insurance company will be construed as having anticipated the employment of clerks to attend to the office of its agent during the latter's absence or sickness, and not as requiring that the agent should attend to all the details of his business in person. Id.

134. Note on employment of clerks as agents. See 10 L. R. A. 609.

property in another city 100 miles distant where the company had another agent with similar authority for "that city and vicinity;" held, that the company was bound by such a policy, as he was a general agent of the company and acting within the scope of his authority; and that the company could not discharge 130.- When a clerk of an agent of an themselves by setting up their private ininsurance company is authorized and en-structions to such agent when they were trusted to examine property and to write out a policy thereon, his contract and knowledge are the contract and knowledge of the agent; and any accidental mistake which he may make is a mistake of the agent, and will be corrected in an action on the policy. Id.

wholly unknown to the plaintiff at time of entering into the contract. Lightbody v. North American Ins. Co., 23 Wend. 18 (N. Y.) See No. 185.

136.- Where an agent, by a written appointment, was declared to be “ regularly appointed as agent and surveyor of 131. An insurance agent is author- the company," and to be duly authorized to appoint sub-agents for the deliv-ized to take applications for insurance:” ery of policies and receiving the pre- held, that after the completion and demium; and payment of the premium by livery of a policy, such agent had no authe assured to such sub-agents is a pay-thority to indorse on said policy an ment to the company, although they do approval of a subsequent insurance, as not pay it over to the agent, but only that authority was not included in the credit him with it. *South Bend Toy written appointment. Wilson v. Genesee Mfg. Co. v. Dakota F. & M. Ins. Co., 48 Mut. Ins. Co., 14 N. Y. 418; rev'g, 16 Barb. N. W. Rep. 310; 20 Ins. L. J. 871 (S. D.); 511. aff'd on rehearing, 52 N. W. Rep. 866.

137. The fact of an agent having in132.- The agency of a duly authorized nocently made a misrepresentation of insurance agent is a personal trust in re- facts, while effecting a contract for his spect to all matters embraced in it in-principal, will not amount to fraud