Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: siness of the The China Fire Insurance Company is at Hongkong; of The Yang­Tsze Insurance Association is at Shanghai; and of The State Assurance Company is at Liverpool. As such foreign corporations they were duly authorized and licensed to do insurance business in the Philippine Islands, and, to that end and for that purpose, the defendant corporation, Warner, Barnes & Co., was the agent of each company. The policies on their face shows that the defendant was the agent of the respective companies, and that it was acting as such agent in dealing with the plaintiff. That in the issuance and delivery of the policies, the defendant was doing business in the name of, acting for, and representing, the respective insurance companies. The different policies expressly recite that, in the event of a loss, the respective companies agree to compensate the plaintiff for the amount of the loss. the defendant company did not insure the property of the plaintiff, or in any manner agree to pay the plaintiff the amount of any loss. The defendant make any contract, either or written, with the plaintiff. The contracts were made between the respective insurance companies and the insured, and were made by the insurance companies, through Warner, Barnes & Co., as their agent. The only defendant in the instant case is "Warner, Barnes & Co., in its capacity as agents of:" the insurance companies. Warner, Barnes & Co. did not make any contract with the plaintiff, and are not liable to the plaintiff on any contract, either as principal or agent. For such reason, plaintiff is not entitled to recover its losses from Warner, Barnes & Co., either as principal or agent SC : The complaint is dismissed, and the judgment of the lower court is reversed, and one will be entered here in favor of Warner, Barnes & Co., Ltd., against the plaintiff, for costs in both this and the lower court. Tuason v. Orozco, 5 Phil 596 (1906) LESAVA Doctrine: A debt thus incurred by the agent is binding directly upon the principal, provided the former ac...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 03/11/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online