Sec. 77. Agent's Right To Dispossess Tenants. New York Rule

Section 2235 of the New York Code of Civil Procedure expressly authorizes the agent of the landlord to make application for the removal of the tenant, and in Case v. Porterfield, 54 App. Div. 109 (N. Y. 1900), it was held that this authority included the right to entitle the proceedings and to issue the precept in the agent's name.21 The proceedings may be entitled and the precept issued in the name of the agent where he is stated in the petition to be the agent of the owners in fee of the premises.22

18 Fellows v. Northup, 39 N. Y. 121, 122 (1868). 19 Realty Transfer Co. v. Kimball, 66 Misc. 185 (N. Y. 1910). 20 Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Wilson, 139 N. Y. 284 (1893) ; but see Kelly v. Bower-man, 113 Mich. 446.

Sec. 78. Insurance Brokers

Many brokers designate themselves "real estate and insurance brokers." As such, they usually solicit and receive applications for insurance. These applications they transmit to some insurance company selected by themselves or by the applicant for insurance. Such brokers are in law regarded as the agents for the applicants and not as agents of the company.23

There are, of course, brokers who write insurance policies, - that is, are authorized by the company to accept risks and write and issue the policies. They are usually regarded as the company's agents, but sometimes even they may be regarded as partly the company's agents and partly the agents of the insured. Some policies contain special provisions as to who are to be regarded as the company's agents and by whose acts and representations the company is to be bound.

A broker who effects insurance under no employment by the insurance company, but for a commission paid by the company upon the premiums received for such risks as he procures and the company chooses to accept, is not an agent of the company. And notice to such an agent is not notice to the company.24 And so an insurance broker soliciting business, whose sole office is to deliver the policy and collect the premium, is not an agent of the company and has no authority to bind the company. If he is merely a conduit between the company and the insured for the delivery of the policy and its renewals and the collection of the premiums, to that extent, it may be said, he is the agent of the company, but no other powers can be predicated upon those acts.25

Powers v. De O., 64 App. Div. 373 (N. T. 1901). Case v. Porterfleld, 54 App. Div. 108 (N. Y. 1900). 23 Hartford Ins. Co. v. Reynolds, 36 Mich. 502 (1877). 24 Devens v. Mechanics & T. Ins. Co., 83 N. Y. 168 (1880).

In some states licenses are required to carry on the business of insurance broker.

25 Allen v. German Am. Ins. Co., 123 N. Y. 6 (1890).