Biggs v. Mut. Reserve Fund Life Ass'n

• Decision Date: 05 March 1901
• Citation: 128 N.C. 5,37 S.E. 955
• Parties: BIGGS. v. MUTUAL RESERVE FUND LIFE ASS'N.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

128 N.C. 5

37 S.E. 955

BIGGS.

v.MUTUAL RESERVE FUND LIFE ASS'N.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 5, 1901.

INSURANCE—FOREIGN CORPORATIONS—SERVICE OF PROCESS — POWER OF ATTORNEY — REVOCATION—EXISTING LIABILITY.

1. A power of attorney was made by an insurance company in strict conformity with Laws 1899, c. 54, § 62, subd. 3, providing that, as a condition precedent to a foreign insurance company's right to do business in the state, such company should appoint the insurance commissioner its attorney to accept service for the company, the authority to continue in force irrevocable so long as any liability of the company remained outstanding in the commonwealth. Held, that such power was irrevocable, and in force as long as any liability of such company existed in the state, though the company had ceased to do business in the state through any local officer or agent, and service of process against such company thereafter on the insurance commissioner was a valid service.

2. Where a foreign insurance company had done business in the state, and had appointed the insurance commissioner its attorney to accept service, as required by Laws 1809, c. 54, § 62, subd. 3, as a condition precedent to the right to do business in the state, the fact that it did not comply with Laws 1899, c. 62, requiring foreign insurance companies to pay a license tax, and do certain other things, as conditions precedent to the right to do business in the state, had no bearing on the question of service of process against such company on the insurance commissioner, since that depended on the existence of liability, not on the doing of business in the state.

Appeal from superior court, Halifax county; Coble, Judge.

Action by Noah Biggs against the Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

W. A. Dunn and Spier Whitaker, for appellant.

J. W. Hinsdale, Shepherd & Shepherd, and R. C. Lawrence, for appellee.

CLARK, J. By virtue of Laws 1899, c. 54, § 62, subd. 3, one of the conditions precedent upon which a foreign insurance company should be authorized to do business in this state was that such company should file a duly-executed instrument with the insurancecommissioner appointing him its attorney upon whom all lawful process against said company could be served, "the authority thereof shall continue in force irrevocable so long as any liability of the company remains outstanding in this commonwealth." The defendant accepted these terms, and on April 13, 1899, filed its duly-executed power of attorney to the required purport with the insurance commissioner, wherein it is stipulated and agreed by said company: "Said company does hereby expressly agree that any lawful process against it which may be served upon said James R. Young, insurance, commissioner, or his successor, shall be of the same force and validity as if served upon the company, and this authority shall continue in force irrevocable so long as any...