48 Minn. 438 | Minn. | 1892
Plaintiff stored with defendants, as warehouse-men, in what is designated in the ca e as the “Old Security Warehouse, ” certain household goods; loss or damage from certain causes.
A request of defendants for instruction to the jury presents the •only question raised on this appeal. It was, in substance, that if they found that defendants informed the agent of the insurance company of the removal, and that he thereupon promised to make the necessary change in the policy, the promise would be binding on the •company, the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy on the policy, and cannot recover in this action. The court refused to so charge.
There was no evidence that defendants had authority from plain■iiff to make any arrangement with the agent of the company with
Order affirmed.
(Opinion published 51 N. W. Rep. 337.)