--

Opinion of the Court.

from that of 1867, and expressly provides that all prior contracts between the parties "are hereby nullified and satisfied.” It is only for a breach of the contract of 1874 the plaintiff sues. Looking at all the provisions of the last agreement, it is clear that Ewing - although bound, while the contract was in force, to devote his time, attention and abilities, primarily, to the interests of the company, within the territory allotted to him was not compelled to continue in its service for any given number of years, at least after 1875, or indefinitely, but was at liberty after that year, if not before, upon reasonable notice, to surrender his position and quit its service, subject to the company's right to buy back such of its goods sold to him as it might select, and for the prices at which they were charged to him. He may have been entirely satisfied with the manner in which the company acted towards him, and yet may have preferred — it is immaterial for what reason not to remain in its service after 1875, or to continue in the business of selling sewing machines. We specify the year 1875, because Ewing agreed to purchase, during that year, $20,000 of the company's machines. But he did not bind himself to purchase any given number during subsequent years. It would be a very hard interpretation of the contract to hold that he was bound by the agreement of 1874 to serve the company within the designated territory so long as it kept the contract, and was satisfied with him as its agent. None of its provisions would justify such an interpretation.

If Ewing had the privilege, upon reasonable notice, of severing the connection between him and the company after 1875, upon what ground could a like privilege be denied the company if it desired to dispense with his services? He contends that his life, or the continuance of the company in business, was the shortest duration of the contract, consistently with its provisions, provided he did his duty. This position is untenable. His appointment was made and accepted subject to the conditions expressed in the agreement. No one of those conditions is to the effect that so long as he devoted his time, attention and abilities to the company's business, he should retain his position as its exclusive vendor, within the territory named,

Opinion of the Court.

without regard to its wishes. If the parties intended that their relations should be of that character, it was easy to have so stipulated. The only part of the contract that gives color to the theory for which the plaintiff contends, is the part declaring that a violation of the spirit of the agreement "shall be sufficient cause for its abrogation." This clause, it may be suggested, was entirely unnecessary if the parties retained the right to abrogate the contract after 1875, at pleasure, and implies that it could be abrogated only for sufficient cause, of which, in case of suit, the jury, under the guidance of the court as to the law, must judge in the light of all the circumstances. We cannot concur in this view. The clause referred to is not equivalent to a specific provision declaring, affirmatively, that the contract should continue in force, for a given number of years, or without limit as to time, unless abrogated by one or the other party for sufficient cause. It was inserted by way of caution, to indicate that the parties were bound to observe equally the spirit and the letter of the agreement while it was in force.

There was some discussion at the bar as to whether Ewing was, strictly, an agent of the company. We think he was. He was none the less an agent because of his appointment as "exclusive vendor" of the defendant's machines within a particular territory, or because of the peculiar privileges granted to or the peculiar restrictions imposed upon him. One clause of the contract prohibits him from soliciting trade, directly or indirectly, in the territory "of other agents;" another, that he will bind "all sub-vendors or agents" to sustain the established retail prices of the company; and still another imposes restrictions upon the sale of his "appointment or agency." The agreement constituted him the sole agent of the company for the sale of its machines within a certain territory. It is true that the machines he undertook to sell were to be purchased by him from the company at a large discount. But he could not sell them by retail below the regular retail prices. This arrangement was the mode adopted to protect the company's interests, and to secure the plaintiff such compensation for his services as would induce him to devote his

Opinion of the Court.

time, attention and abilities to the company's interests. He was still a mere agent to sell such machines as might be delivered to him under the contract. We perceive nothing in the agreement of 1874 to take the case out of the general rule that "the principal has a right to determine or revoke the authority given to his agent at his own mere pleasure; for, since the authority is conferred by his mere will, and is to be executed for his own benefit and his own purposes, the agent cannot insist upon acting when the principal has withdrawn his confidence, and no longer desires his aid." Story on Agency, § 462, 463. So far as the company's power of revocation is concerned, the case is not materially different from what it would be if the plaintiff had agreed to sell such machines as were delivered to him at the established retail prices, receiving, as compensation for his services, the difference between those prices and the amount he agreed to pay for them under the contract of 1874. In either case, his relation to the company would be one of agency, that could be terminated at its will or by renunciation upon his part, at least after 1875. Of course the revocation by the principal of the agent's authority could not injuriously affect existing contracts made by the latter under the power originally conferred upon him.

For the reasons stated the court below erred in not instructing the jury, as requested, to return a verdict for the defendant.

The judgment is reversed, with directions to grant a new trial, and for further proceedinys consistent with this opinion.

MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY and MR. JUSTICE GRAY did not hear the argument or take part in the decision of this case.

Statement of the Case.

CRAIG v. CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN.

No. 88. Argued November 6, 9, 1891.- Decided November 23, 1891.

The provisions of § 4283 of the Revised Statutes relieving the owner of a vessel from liability for a loss occasioned without his privity or knowledge, apply to an insurance company, to which, as insurer, a vessel has been abandoned, and which was charged with negligence in causing the vessel to be so towed that she sank and became a total loss, and the life of an employé on board of her was lost.

The identity of the vessel was not lost, she being officered and manned and having on board a cargo.

The provisions of § 4283 apply to cases of personal injury and death. The extinguishment of liability may be availed of as matter of law, on the facts, in a suit to recover for the death of the employé.

The provisions of the statute apply to a vessel used on the Great Lakes, she not being "used in rivers or inland navigation," within the meaning of § 4289.

The insurer being a corporation, the privity or knowledge of a person who was alleged to have been guilty of the negligence, and who was not a managing officer of the corporation, or employed directly by it, and whose powers were no greater than those of the master of a vessel, was not the privity or knowledge of the corporation.

THE Court stated the case as follows:

This is an action at law brought by Thomas Craig, administrator of the estate of John Carbry, deceased, against the Continental Insurance Company of New York, a New York insurance corporation, and three other insurance corporations, to recover, under a statute of Michigan, (2 Howell's Annotated Statutes of Michigan, §§ 8313, 8314,) $25,000, as damages for the death of Carbry, for the benefit of his mother and his three minor sisters, as next of kin and distributees of his estate, it being alleged that he lost his life through the negligence of the defendants, in December, 1883. It was commenced in the Superior Court of the city of Detroit, Michigan, and was removed by the defendants into the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Statement of the Case.

The defendants were insurers against marine risks of a steam propeller called the Enterprise. While on a voyage on the Lakes, she was stranded, November 20, 1883, on rocks at Green Island, in the northern part of Lake Huron. She had on board a cargo of merchandise and a crew of 10 or 12 men. After the stranding, her owners abandoned her to the insurers, and she became the property of the latter. The general agent of the Continental Insurance Company for the Lake region was Mr. Dimock, of Buffalo, New York, who was also a member of the firm of Crosby & Dimock, of that place, who were general agents for several other companies. James J. Reardon, of Buffalo, was employed by Crosby & Dimock as a marine inspector. Among his other duties was that of going, when notified, to the assistance of wrecked and stranded vessels insured by companies represented by Crosby & Dimock, and getting them to a port of safety. On November 29, 1883, Reardon was notified by Crosby & Dimock in regard to the Enterprise, and went with a steam-tug called the Balize, with steam-pumps and engineers, to the assistance of the Enterprise. One of the steam-pumps was in charge of Carbry. Soon after their arriving at the place where the Enterprise was, her crew being still on board of her and in charge of her, the steampumps were set up, and she was pumped out and pulled off from the place where she had stranded. This was done under the supervision of Reardon. She was more or less injured by the stranding, but when she was got off she was towed into deep water, and, although she leaked, she was kept free by the use of one pump for about 66 hours, from 10 o'clock Thursday morning until 4 o'clock the following Sunday morning. Part of her cargo had been removed, but it was replaced. Her machinery was disabled, and it was necessary that the Balize should take her in tow, to remove her to a port where she could be repaired. She started in tow astern of the Balize, bound for Detroit, at 4 o'clock on Sunday morning, December 9, 1883, with her cargo on board and a crew of 13 men, including 4 who were in charge of 2 steam-pumps, one of which was under the care of Carbry. Her mate was in command of her. Reardon was on board of the Balize. No trouble was ex