Summers v. The Commercial Union Ins. Co.

Summers v. The Commercial Union Ins. Co.

Non‑suit affirmed because the interim receipt was signed by a sub‑agent (Smith) who lacked authority to bind the company; the local general agent's powers involved personal discretion and were not delegable in the absence of express authority or ratification, and joint general agents required concurrence which was not shown.

Citation
(1881) 6 SCR 19
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Robert Summers; Defendant/respondent: The Commercial Union Assurance Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 April 1881
Procedural Posture
Insurance Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment on Non‑suit Affirmed
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; non‑suit ordered/entered
Legal Topics
Interim Receipt, Sub‑agent Authority and Delegation, Joint Agency and Concurrence, Ratification, Misrepresentation
Source Language
English
Insurance Law Agency Law Contract Law Evidence Interim Receipt Sub‑agent Authority and Delegation Joint Agency and Concurrence Ratification +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Summers

Plaintiff/appellant

The Commercial Union Assurance Company

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Insurance Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment on Non‑suit Affirmed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim receipt signed by a sub‑agent (David Smith) bound the insurer
  2. 2 Whether a general agent (Williams) had power to delegate authority to sub‑agents
  3. 3 Whether joint general agents (Westmacott and Wickens) could be bound by the act of one without concurrence of the other

Ratio Decidendi

Non‑suit affirmed because the interim receipt was signed by a sub‑agent (Smith) who lacked authority to bind the company; the local general agent's powers involved personal discretion and were not delegable in the absence of express authority or ratification, and joint general agents required concurrence which was not shown.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; non‑suit ordered/entered

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Non‑suit ordered/entered