
    L. B. Miller v. The Consolidated Patrons and Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant.
    1 2Insurance: implied promise to pay amount returned by adjuster. The charter of a mutual fire insurance company provided that the director from each township should be the adjuster-of losses in. that township, and the directors, after 2 an investigation of the facts nad efforts to settle plaintiff’s loss, passed a motion that the settlement be left to D., the director from plaintiff’s township. D. returned the amount of loss on a blank furnished by the aompany and recommended payment. In an action for such amount; the company moved for a verdict on the ground that no agreement to pay was established, and refused to introduce evidence. Meld, that the direction of a verdict for plaintiff was proper, since the evidence was sufficient to show an implied promise to pay the amount returned by the adjuster.
    1 2Adjusters: Limitation of general power. Where the charter of a mutual fire insurance company provided that the director in each township should adjust the losses in that township, the fact that the adjuster’s report was made on a blank furnished 2 by the company, which merely recommended payment of a certain amount, which the insured agreed to and that the charter declared that the adjuster should be guided by such regulations as the company and its directors should establish, was not sufficient to show a limitation on the general powers of the adjuster to bind the company to pay the amount agreed on by him and the insured
    3 •Authority to bind insured by agreement as to amount of loss: Evidence. Where, after futile efforts had been made by a muual fire insurance company to settle plaintiff’s loss, the directors passed a motion, that the settlement be left to D., the company’s director from plaintiff’s township, D. had power to bind the company by an agreement as to the amount of loss sustained. -
    
      
      •Appeal from Buchanan District Court. — Hon. P. C. Platt, Judge.
    Thursday, January 31, 1901.
    Plaintiee held a policy of insurance in defendant company on certain buildings, together with personal property. He suffered a loos by fire and bdings this action to recover the amount thereof. After ■ plaintiff’s evidence was all in, defendant asked and was refused a verdict in its favor! Upon defendant then declining to introduce any testimony, the court instructed the jury to return a verdict in plaintiff’s favor for $2,508, which was accordingly done. Prom a judgment rendered on such verdict, defendant appeals.
    
    ■Affirmed.
    
      E. E. Hastier for appellant.
    
      Lahe & Harmon and J. E. Jewel for appellee.
   Waterman, J.

We have so far considered the case without reference to the special authority given the adjuster by the adoption ■of the motion on January 3, 1898, in which the matter of settlement was left with Diehl. Defendant’s claim as to this matter is that Diehl’s term of office was about to expire, and, as he was familiar with the ease, this motion was adopted so that the matter might remain in his charge. It is true that a successor to Diehl had'been elected, who had not yet gone into office; and there is some ground for defendant’s claim that one purpose of the motion was to leave the matter in Diehl’s hands. But what matter was so left? Not the mere investigation of the. facts of the loss. That had already been made. Plaintiff claimed his loss amounted to $2,590. His policy was for $3,800. Hp to the time of the adoption of this motion ■the parties had been negotiating, but had failed to agree. The motion was then adopted leaving the matter of the settlement of the loss with the adjuster. Settlement means a ■determination by agreement. This was had between the ■adjuster and plaintiff, and we are unable to see why it is not binding on defendant. That it was regarded as binding by the secretary is evidenced by the fact that he issued .a circular to the members of the company after the adjuster’s report, in which, among other losses, he set out that of plaintiff as $2,508, and announced an assessment of 3-J mills for the purpose of paying such losses. The evidence introduced by plaintiff made his case. As it was uncontradicted, we think the court was warranted in directing a verdict in his favor. — Affirmed.  