Boren v. Manhattan Life Insurance

Although it may have been within the scope of the authority of certain general agents of the defendant insurance company to employ for it a subagent and bind the company to pay him for services rendered, the company was not bound for the compensation of a person who was employed by these general agents, in their individual capacity, to work for them; nor was parol evidence admissible to vary the terms of a plain and unambiguous Written contract between these general agents and the plaintiff, under the terms of which he was their employee and not the employee of the company.

Judgment affirmed.