Herbert v. Lukens & Montgomery

Citations

• 153 Pa. 180
• 25 A. 1116
• 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1071

Syllabus

<p>[Marked to be reported.]</p> <p>Evidence of agency — Neglect to transfer insurance policy.</p> <p>Duffield purchased from Cunningham a building and lot, executing a purchase money mortgage, at the same time obtaining a policy of fire insurance, and transferring it to the mortgagee. Subsequently Duffield paid off the mortgage, and the policy was re-transferred to him. On the same day he executed a mortgage to Miss Fry, and transferred to her the policy as collateral. Defendants were conveyancers and agents for Miss Fry, having charge of all of her papers. In February, 1885, defendants received a letter from an attorney stating that Duffield had sold the property, and asking for a loan of the policy to have it transferred to the new owner. Defendants wrote that the papers could be seen at their office, and if the policy was to be transferred, the seller should be sent to them. Subsequently, at request of plaintiff and his attorney, the administrator of Cunningham called at defendant’s office, and executed, in the presence of a clerk, but in the absence of defendants, a transfer of the policy to plaintiff, paying to the clerk $1.00 as the expense of transfer. Defendants subsequently noticed the mistake, and notified Cunningham to send Duffield to their office to make a proper transfer. Duffield neglected to call, and a fire occurred on June 16, 1885. Plaintiff asked defendants to collect the loss from the insurance company; they undertook to do so for $5.00, and gave a receipt for “ five dollars for services in arranging and attending to loss by fire at premises, Mill and Frankford streets, with Fire Association.” The insurance company refused to pay the loss, and plaintiff then brought suit against defendants to recover damages. Held, that there was nothing in the evidence to show that defendants had assumed any duty to plaintiff, and that plaintiff was not entitled to recover.</p>