112 F. 549 | S.D.N.Y. | 1901
This is an action to recover certain sums, amounting to $512.94, alleged to be due from Alexander Hollander, sole member of the firm of Alexander Hollander & Co., as premiums on two policies of insurance, dated, respectively, May 3, 1900, and June 21, 1900/issued to Alexander Hollander & Co., ‘'on account of whom it may concern, * * * loss, if any, payable to Alexander Hollander & Co. or order,” covering shipments on steamer Orion from April 24, 1900, to April 24, 1901, or the Evelyn as a substitute, and on the steamer Michigan from June 6, 1900, to June 6, 1901, during voyages at and from New York to Mobile and/or Galveston, and while on dock awaiting delivery at Mobile. The liability is denied by the respondent, who alleges that the contracts were made in the interest of the Hollander Steamship Company, a corporation engaged in the business of common carriers, and that the policies were issued to Alexander Hollander & Co. by mistake. It appears that Mr. Hollander was president and the largest stockholder of the said steamship company, which had offices in the building known as “90-92 Beaver Street,” New York. He was also doing business in the name of Alexander Hollander & Co., as freight agents of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company and the Central Railroad Company of New Jersey, with practically the same offices. It is contended by him that there was no connection between his business as freight agent and as president of the steamship company. The insurance business of the respondent and of the steamship company, prior to the transactions involved in this claim, was in the hands of Hayward & Wreaks, insurance brokers, who, in February, 1900, obtained insurance for Alexander Hollander & Co. from the libelant, “to cover goods of their own or in which they may have an interest, or which they may be instructed to insure. * * * Per vessel or vessels * * * at and from ports and places in the United States to any and all ports and places in all parts of the world.” In March, 1900, the same brokers obtained somewhat similar insurance to that in question here from the libelant upon the steamships Orion and Catania for the Hollander Steamship Company, the certificates under the policy being issued for “Plollander Steamship Company.” Shortly thereafter Johnson & Higgins, insurance brokers in New York, made overtures to Mr. Hollander for the business, offering more favorable terms. They were represented by a Mr. Hopkins, who, at the instance of Mr. Richardson, the general manager of the steamship company, called upon Mr. Hollánder, and was by him referred to Mr. Richardson, with the statement that the latter had charge of all insurance matters, and that he, Mr. Hollander, preferred that arrangements should be made with Mr. Richardson. After that time all negotiations were .carried on by Mr. Richardson, who had several conversations with Mr. Hopkins. The latter testified that he understood he was dealing with Alexander Hollander & Co., who had insurable interests to be covered; and this is confirmed by the correspondence which ensued, the greater portion of which, on the part of Johnson & Higgins; being addressed to Alexander Hollander & Co., both prior to the insurance being effected and for some time thereafter. On the
It is further urged by the respondent that he had no insurable interest under the policies, and that for such reason there can be no iccovery. It is true, of course, that in the absence of a consideration for the premiums ‘there would be no liability, but such failure of consideration is not established by the respondent’s statements that he had no interest. As I find there was no mistake in issuing the policies to Alexander Hollander & Co., it follows that the re
It'is claimed by the respondent that the libelant should look to Johnson & Higgins for their premiums, on the ground that they were the authors of a mistake between the parties as to the name of the assured; but as I have found that there was no mistake between the parties to this action, such contention cannot prevail. Under the English usage, the broker alone would be liable to the underwriter for the premiums; because, as between the assured and the underwriter, the premiums are considered paid. The underwriter, to whom, in most instances, the assured are unknown, looks to the. broker for payment, and he to the assured. The latter pays the premiums to the broker only, who is a middleman between ■the assured and the underwriter. But he is not merely an agent; .he is a principal to receive the money from the assured and pay it to. the underwriter. Hence the general rule there is that, as regards ■premiums, the broker is the debtor of,the underwriter, and the assured is the debtor of the broker. As regards losses, the underwriter is the debtor of the assured. Arn. Ins. (7th Ed.) § 106. No such usage, however, has been proved as existing here, and the ordinary rule that the assured was the debtor of the underwriter ■ must, govern.
Decree for libelant.