
    David Wells versus Samuel R. Greene and Trustees
    An agent of a fire insurance company established m a foreign country having executed a policy, on which a supposed loss has arisen, is not therefore the trustee of the assured.
    The question before the Court in this action arose on the answer of Joseph Otis, who was summoned as one of the trustees of Greene, tne principal defendant.
    He stated that he was agent of a copartnership in London in the kingdom of Great Britain, called “ The Phcenix Assurance Company of London,” and was duly authorized by them to sign and seal policies of assurance in their behalf, the said policies to be accom ponied with certain conditions prescribed by the com pony : —that on the 8th * of March, 1811, he signed and sealed, in his said capacity, a policy insuring from loss by fire, for one year from the date, the sum of 8000 dollars on the stock in trade of the said Greene, consisting of English goods in a certain store in Boston: that on the 4th of April following the said store took fire, and a part of the goods insured were damaged or consumed; that Greene had not in Otis’s opinion conformed to the conditions of the insurance, by giving notice and making proof thereof in the manner prescribed in the conditions; that he (Otis) did not believe himself authorized, under the circumstances, to pay the whole or any part of the sum assured ; that he was not owner of any of the stock or funds of the said company or the profits thereof, nor bound to pay any part of the said loss, except from the funds of said company; that Greene had demanded of him payment of the said loss, but no part of it had been paid ; and that since the commencement of this action he had received orders from his constituents not to pay the same, until Greene should exhibit a detailed account of the nature and particulars of his loss, &c.
    
    
      Prescott for the plaintiff.
    
      The Solicitor General for the trustee.
   By the Court.

Mr. Otis is simply the agent of persons in a foreign country. He contracted in that character with the defendant. He disputes the claim of the defendant on behalf of his principals, and acknowledges nothing due from them to Greene. The demand of Greene is upon the copartnership in London, and if he had by action maintained that demand, and recovered a judgment against the copartnership, it would not follow that Otis was answerable as his trustee. Indeed, no state of facts, which could arise out of the transaction stated by him, could fix him as trustee of Greene.

Trustee discharged,.  