Wachter v. Phœnix Assurance Co.

Citations

• 132 Pa. 428
• 19 A. 289
• 1890 Pa. LEXIS 835

Syllabus

<p>1. A principal is bound by the acts or conduct of his agent within the scope of his apparent authority, unless done with knowledge or notice in the person dealing with him of the actual extent of the agent’s authority: Griswold v. Gebbie, 126 Pa. 353; Hubbard v. Tenbrook, 124 Pa. 291.</p> <p>2. An insurance company that approves, the act of a soliciting agent in indorsing upon a fire policy a clause making it payable to a mortgagee, thereby accredits such agent as authorized to represent it, at least as to that particular risk; and if such agent afterward assure the parties that nothing more need be done to secure the mortgagee, in the event of a sale by the mortgagor, the company will be estopped from alleging the contrary.</p> <p>3. The court must submit a case to the jury when there is a conflict of testimony, although the testimony tends to raise an estoppel against one of the parties; but if all the facts essential to create the estoppel are admitted or established beyond all controversy, there is no necessity for such submission, as it then becomes the province of the court to declare the law applicable to such facts.</p>