Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
William B. Shaw, Appellant, v. Home Life Insurance Company, Respondent, 1872 — 49 N.Y. 681 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
William B. Shaw, Appellant, v. Home Life Insurance Company, Respondent
49 N.Y. 681·New York Court of Appeals·1872·NY
All concur.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
William B. Shaw, Appellant, v. Home Life Insurance Company, Respondent.
(Argued June 4, 1872;
decided June 11, 1872.)
Plaintiff engaged with defendant as soliciting agent, under a contract by which he was to receive during the time he acted as such agent five per cent commission upon the amount of annual premiums due and payable in each year after the first year of their continuance, upon all policies solicited and secured by him, and in case of his death while so acting as agent, defendant agreed to pay to his wife, if she survived him, the commissions accruing thereafter to which he would have been entitled if he had lived and continued to act. The contract contained a provision that either party might cancel it after giving three months notice of such intent, and if defendant' should cancel it,' it should continue to pay plaintiff or his wjfe the commissions as aforesaid, provided he should perform the necessary service in procuring payment of the premium. After two years the agreement was rescinded by mutual consent and the agency terminated. Plaintiff claimed to recover his commissions upon premiums thereafter received upon policies solicited and secured by him. Held, that by the terms of the contract a commission upon the premiums accruing upon the policies secured by plaintiff during each year of the continuance of the agency was a full compensation for the year’s service, save where defendant canceled the contract as provided, and plaintiff having voluntarily surrendered the right to perfora future services and to receive the compensation therefor, had no right to greater compensation for past services and could not recover*.
Joseph R. Flanders for the appellant.
A. B. Capwell for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — G-boveb, J.,]
G-boveb, J.,
reads for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed with costs.