Hutchinson v. Dugan

Citations

• 71 Pa. Super. 41
• 1919 Pa. Super. LEXIS 25

Syllabus

<p>Contract — Course of dealing — Insurance broher — •Action for premiums — Evidence.</p> <p>In an action of assumpsit where the plaintiff declares on hook account for premiums due on insurance policies and surety bonds, and it appears that the plaintiff was a general agent for several companies, and the defendant was an insurance broker, a judgment on a verdict for plaintiff will he sustained where four of plaintiff’s witnesses testified that usually, in the insurance business, the premiums were charged to the broker, policies were sent to him, the general agent had no dealings with the insured, and the plaintiff and defendant had so dealt with each other for three or four years, and settlement had been made by defendant on this basis by monthly payments.</p> <p>In such a ease, the contract being established, it is competent to show that a certain course of dealing was usually followed in the business and that it had been followed, in this particular case.</p>