daniels v. citizens' ins. co. 425 �Daniels v. The Citizens' Ins. Co.* {Circuit Court, D. Indiana. January, 1881. ) �1. WeITTEN IliSTrEAHCB CONTHACTS— PAHOL EvIDENCB TO VaHT. �Paroi evidence Is admissible to ascertain the parties intended to be insured by a written Insurance contract, although on the face of the contract there Is no ainbigulty concemlng the same. Si. Bame— Same— MABnras Ikbubance— Who Mat Bue— KiiowMiDaB op Agent — Estoppbl. �The Citizens' Insurance Company, axorporation of Indiana, doing an Insurance business at Evansville, in that state, issued an open poUcy No. 38, to its own agents, Drew & Bennett, at BvansvlUe, to cover ail risks indorsed thereon, or eertified in Insurance slips to be covered thereby. It appointed Hudson & Bro., of Ohlo, to soUcit and obtain rlsks for It In the latter state, and, to avoid the laws of that state in relation to forelgn Insurance companies doing business in the state issued slips to Hudson & Bro. covering such property, under the policy No. 38, issued to its agents at Eransville, as Hudson & Bro. migbt agree to insure. Hudson Se Bro. obtained a rlsk from the plalntifC, Daniels, of $2,500 upon 2,- 500 bushels of sait, then in a barge towed by the steamer Robin, and received the premium, $45, from Daniels therefor. The Insur- ance Company, through its agents, Hudson & Bro., issued au In- surance slip certifying that Hudson & Bro. were insured In the property therein described under policy No. 38 previously Is- sued to Drew & Bennett Hudson & Bro. had^ no interest in the sait. Eeld, ihat Daniels could sue the Insurance company tn bis own name upon the Insurance contract, and prove by paroi that tiie Insurance was taken out for his beneflt; that the Insurance company was bound to know what its agents, Hudson & Bro., knew, and could not set up their want of interest in the property, or that the contract, as shown by the policy No. 38 and the Insur- ance slip, was not legal and binding upon them. �a PaBOL CoNTKAOT of iNSnEASOE. �And hddyfurther, that e ven if the contract, as shown hj the writings^ was void for the reason that Hudson & Bro., while acting for the In- surance company, could not insure themselves, yet that Daniels could recover, as the writings and the paroi proof showed an agreement to insure Daniels, which was valid as a paroi contract of Insurance. 4. Insurance — Loss Payable to Consignee— Wno Mat Sue. �The Insurance slip insured Hudson & Bro. ; loss, if anv, payable to John K. Speed. The sait was c nsigned to Bpeed, and he yas ex pected to receive and pay draits on account thereof, and to secur<»- him for such payments the loss was made payable to him. The prop- erty having been lost before any such paymmt was made by l^>eea, held, that the suit was properly brought by Danlela In his own name. �•Reported by Florien Glauque and J. 0. Harper, of the Cincinnati bar. ����
