Uploaded March 2025 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Globe & Rutgers Fire-Insurance Co. v. Jones
Michigan Court of Appeals
89 N.W. 580 (1902)
Suppose a person contracted to work for a particular company for five years, and suppose that one year in, the company merged with another business, forming a completely new company.
Is the person obligated to perform the remainder of the contract for the new company?
That's the question in Globe and Rutgers Fire Insurance Company versus Jones.
James Jones worked for the Rutgers Fire Insurance Company as its local agent in Detroit.
On March first eighteen ninety eight, Jones signed a five year contract with Rutgers to be the company's general agent for Michigan.
The contract required Jones to provide Rutgers with monthly account statements and forward balances to Rutgers within sixty days of the end of each month.
In September or October eighteen ninety eight, Jones heard rumors that the Globe Fire Insurance Company would be buying Rutgers.
In October, Jones stopped forwarding balances to Rutgers, although he continued to send account statements.
In December eighteen ninety eight, Globe and Rutgers merged into the Globe and Rutgers Fire Insurance Company.
Jones learned about the merger in March of eighteen ninety nine, and stopped doing business under his contract with Rutgers.
In May of that year, Globe and Rutgers offered Jones a job as its Michigan general agent.
Jones refused. He objected to the character and reputation of the men who'd been in charge of Globe.
Globe and Rutgers sued Jones to recover the balances Jones hadn't forwarded, which totaled approximately eleven hundred dollars.
Jones responded that Rutgers had breached its contract with him, and that his damages offset any amount he owed. The trial court ruled for Jones. Globe and Rutgers appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, arguing that Jones's contract with Rutgers passed to the merged company.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/globe-rutgers-fire-insurance-co-v-jones
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/globe-rutgers-fire-insurance-co-v-jones
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Globe & Rutgers Fire-Insurance Co. v. Jones
Michigan Court of Appeals
89 N.W. 580 (1902)
Suppose a person contracted to work for a particular company for five years, and suppose that one year in, the company merged with another business, forming a completely new company.
Is the person obligated to perform the remainder of the contract for the new company?
That's the question in Globe and Rutgers Fire Insurance Company versus Jones.
James Jones worked for the Rutgers Fire Insurance Company as its local agent in Detroit.
On March first eighteen ninety eight, Jones signed a five year contract with Rutgers to be the company's general agent for Michigan.
The contract required Jones to provide Rutgers with monthly account statements and forward balances to Rutgers within sixty days of the end of each month.
In September or October eighteen ninety eight, Jones heard rumors that the Globe Fire Insurance Company would be buying Rutgers.
In October, Jones stopped forwarding balances to Rutgers, although he continued to send account statements.
In December eighteen ninety eight, Globe and Rutgers merged into the Globe and Rutgers Fire Insurance Company.
Jones learned about the merger in March of eighteen ninety nine, and stopped doing business under his contract with Rutgers.
In May of that year, Globe and Rutgers offered Jones a job as its Michigan general agent.
Jones refused. He objected to the character and reputation of the men who'd been in charge of Globe.
Globe and Rutgers sued Jones to recover the balances Jones hadn't forwarded, which totaled approximately eleven hundred dollars.
Jones responded that Rutgers had breached its contract with him, and that his damages offset any amount he owed. The trial court ruled for Jones. Globe and Rutgers appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, arguing that Jones's contract with Rutgers passed to the merged company.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/globe-rutgers-fire-insurance-co-v-jones
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/globe-rutgers-fire-insurance-co-v-jones
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
