Phoenix Insurance Company v. Hamilton

by Joseph P. Bradley

United States Supreme Court

81 U.S. 504

Phoenix Insurance Company  v.  Hamilton

ERROR to the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Ohio; the case being thus:

Hamilton and Cook were partners in the grain commission business, at Toledo, Ohio, and kept their consignments of grain in store in an elevator at that place belonging to the Michigan Southern Railroad Company, whose servants had the entire charge and care of it. Hamilton retired from the firm in July, 1867, but no notice of the dissolution was given, and by common agreement Cook was allowed to carry on the business in the partnership name until the end of the year. During this term insurance to the amount of $10,000 was effected with the Phoenix Insurance Company of Brooklyn, through their agent, in the name of the firm, Hamilton & Cook, against loss or damage by fire on the 'grain in store, their own, or held by them in trust or on commission, or sold and not delivered,' this being the usual method of taking insurance among commission merchants in Toledo. Al loss occurred on the 21st of December, whilst the policy was running; and the insurance company declining to pay it, Hamilton & Cook sued them. The defence set up was:

1st. Want of insurable interest in Hamilton; and,

2d. Misrepresentation and concealment with regard to the interest.

The plaintiffs, on the trial, waived any claim for grain belonging to themselves individually, and asked a verdict but for the value of the grain which was received on commission; asking to recover this amount for the use and benefit of the owners.

At the request of the plaintiffs' counsel, the court charged that if no representations were made with regard to the individuals who composed the firm of Hamilton & Cook, there was no misrepresentation which could avoid the policy; and that if Hamilton & Cook had no actual care or custody of the grain, but that so far as regarded its preservation from fire, it was entirely in the control of the railroad company, and so understood by the company's agent when the policy was effected, the omission to inform the defendant of the agreement of dissolution could not be considered a concealment which would avoid the policy. Verdict and judgment went accordingly for the plaintiffs, and the case now came here on exceptions to the charge of the court.

Mr. A. C. Bradley, for the insurance company, plaintiff in error:

1. Cook, alone, at the date of the policy and of the fire, held the grain in question in trust or on commission. He alone was the bailee, and alone had an insurable interest. Hamilton had no custody, was no bailee, and had no insurable interest. No action, therefore, can be maintained; not a joint action, because the interest was sole, nor a sole action, because the policy was joint.

It is true, indeed, that a nominal partner is sometimes regarded as a real one. But he is only so regarded adversely and to subject him to the obligations of a partner. And this is but right. When a partner retires from a firm, still keeping his name before the public, he can mean nothing but to give to the firm a credit which it does not deserve. Here, Hamilton, whose name doubtless made the firm attractive, withdraws; leaving his name in order that business might be drawn to Cook. This was a deception. Such an act may subject a person to the liabilities of a partner; but surely should not give him a partner's benefits and advantages.

2. The policy was void for fraud. Hamilton and Cook had been partners under their joint names, and the firm name continued to be used by each of them from the time of the dissolution till the time of insurance, and afterwards. Every such use of that name was a representation that both persons still composed that firm. Such representation was untrue and of a material matter. Had Cook been alone held out to the world less insurance would have been needed. It was obviously Hamilton's name which made the firm attractive and brought business to it. Indeed, but for the prestige which Hamilton's name gave the firm, it does not appear that Cook would have had any business or needed any insurance. Then, again, if Hamilton, in addition to the name, had felt the care and exercised the natural vigilance of a partner, he might have prevented the destruction of the building. At all events, every untruth uttered with an intent to deceive others for the benefit of the party uttering it, or the benefit of his friends, is a fraud on all parties deceived. Here the company's agent issued the policy believing both Hamilton and Cook to be partners. They so represented themselves; herein committing a fraud on the company. That fraud vitiates the policy.

Mr. P. Phillips (a brief of Messrs. Waites, Bissell, and Gorill being filed), contra.

Mr. Justice BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.

Notes