American Casualty Ins. Co. v. Lea

• Decision Date: 29 October 1892
• Citation: 20 S.W. 416
• Parties: AMERICAN CASUALTY INS. CO. v. LEA, Judge.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

20 S.W. 416

AMERICAN CASUALTY INS. CO. v. LEA, Judge.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

October 29, 1892.

Petition by the American Casualty Insurance Company for a writ of prohibition against Robert J. Lea, circuit judge, to prevent him from proceeding in a cause pending before him. Petition denied.

Sanders & Hill, for petitioner.

An insurance company doing only an insurance business cannot be required to answer to other than its insurance contractual liabilities in a foreign state. Insurance Co. v. French, 18 How. 404; St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U. S. 350, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 354; Mor. Corp. § 980; Estes v. Belford, 22 Fed. Rep. 275; U. S. v. Telephone Co., 29 Fed. Rep. 35; Oland v. Insurance Co., (Md.) 14 Atl. Rep. 669; Parke v. Insurance Co., 44 Pa. St. 422; Gottschalk Co. v. Distilling & Cattle Feeding Co., 50 Fed. Rep. 683; Insurance Co. v. Granger, (Iowa,) 17 N. W. Rep. 504; Upton Manuf'g Co. v. Stewart, (Iowa,) 16 N. W. Rep. 84; Friezen v. Insurance Co., 30 Fed. Rep. 350; Winney v. Sandwich Manuf'g Co., (Iowa,) 50 N. W. Rep. 565; Camden Rolling Mill Co. v. Swede Iron Co., 32 N. J. Law, 15; Weight v. Insurance Co., 30 La. Ann. 1186; Rehm v. Insurance Co., (Ind. Sup.) 25 N. E. Rep. 173; Banking Co. v. Carr, 76 Ala. 388; Iron Works v. Brevoort, (Mich.) 41 N. W. Rep. 215; Bank v. Burch, (Mich.) 43 N. W. Rep. 453.

Martin & Murphy and Dan W. Jones, for respondent.

HUGHES, J.

This is a petition by the insurance company praying for a writ to prohibit the circuit judge from proceeding in a cause pending before him as judge of the Pulaski circuit court, which is a suit for libel by J. W. Calloway against the company and its agents, in which suit process was issued against the defendants, and served upon the auditor of the state as the agent of the insurance company, which is a foreign corporation organized in the state of Maryland, and doing "an accident, casualty, and employers' liability insurance business in this state, and no other business in this state," as stated in the petition for the writ of prohibition. The petition states that the company had complied with the insurance laws of the state, and had appointed the auditor of the state to receive service of process for it; and the service in the said suit was upon the auditor, by delivering to him a copy of the summons as provided by the statute. The company, by attorney, appeared specially only, and filed a motion to quash the return on the summons, on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of either the company or the subject-matter of the suit. The motion was denied. Hence the application for the writ of prohibition. The complaint in the circuit court (a copy of which is exhibited with the petition to this court) states that, "as an unlawful means of adverising its business," etc., the defendant company falsely and maliciously did publish and cause to be published libelous and defamatory matter about him, and accused him therein of having been guilty of embezzlement, which is a felony. Now, the contention of the insurance company is that it can be sued in this state only upon liabilities growing out of its insurance contracts, while it does no other than an insurance business in the state; and that it cannot, therefore, he held to answer upon this service in a suit for libel in this state. It is well settled that a corporation may be guilty of and can be sued and indicted for libel. Odger, L. & Sland. 368, 369; ...