Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Albert
| Decision Date | 31 October 1866 |
| Citation | 39 Mo. 181 |
| Parties | CONNECTICUT MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent, v. ADAM ALBERT AND SOPHIA ALBERT, Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Land Court.
Knox & Smith, for appellants.
Krum & Decker, for respondent.
This was a suit instituted in the Land Court of St. Louis county for the recovery of the possession of certain real estate claimed by the plaintiff under and by virtue of a deed of trust executed by one Lorenz Spiegel and the said Sophia, formerly wife of the said Lorenz, to secure the payment of certain notes executed by him in favor of the plaintiff for borrowed money. It is admitted that the plaintiff is a foreign corporation, and that the transaction out of which the suit originated took place in this State through an agent of the said company. The real question is apparent from the following instruction asked by the defend ants and refused by the court in trial, viz:
“The court, sitting as a jury, declares the law applicable to this case as follows:--If plaintiff, a corporation organized and acting, and having its main office in the State of Connecticut, by its agent in this city, loaned money in St. Louis to the amount of $700,000, in a hundred and five different loans, during a period of fourteen months, and that one of these loans was the one made to Lorenz Spiegel for $4,000, and that plaintiff's claim to the property in question is founded upon a deed of trust made to secure notes given for this $4,000, then said corporation was doing business in this State, and the notes given by Lorenz Spiegel and the deed of trust to secure the same are utterly void and of no effect; and if plaintiff's title was derived through such deed of trust he cannot recover.
The judgment was for the plaintiff, and the case is brought here by appeal.
The proper construction of the statute which is relied upon by the appellants to defeat the recovery of plaintiff was considered by this court in the case of Bk. of Louisville v. Young, 37 Mo. 398. In that case the loan was made by an agent of the foreign banking corporation, in the notes of its own issue. It was a case very clearly within the provisions of the act referred to--R. C. 1855, p. 289, § 14. The object of the agent was to carry on what is generally termed a banking business within the limits of this State. The opinion of the court in reference to the true construction of this action was, that “the obvious intention of the act was to exclude certain associations, foreign corporations, from coming into competition with the authorized banking establishments of this State, and to prevent their circulating depreciated currency.”
It is admitted that the language used in framing this section is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glaser v. Rothschild
...guide to its right construction. [Endlich on Interpretation of Statutes, secs. 58, 59 and cases cited.] So it was said in Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Albert, 39 Mo. 181: 'But the better rule, as we think, is to presume that true intent and meaning is to be found in the title, unless it is p......
-
McDermott v. State
...Wisconsin, where before being put on their passage acts are read merely by reading the title. Eby's Appeal, 70 Pa. 311, 314;Conn. M. L. I. Co. v. Albert, 39 Mo. 181;United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch, 358, 383, 2 L. Ed. 304, and cases in Rose's Notes; United States v. Palmer, 3 Wheat. 610, 6......
-
State v. Schwartzmann Service
... ... App.), 81; ... 36 Cyc. (Statutes) 1132; Connecticut Mutal Life Insurance ... Co. v. Albert, 38 Mo. 181; ... Mo. 517, 534, 152 S.W. 347; Connecticut Mutual Life Ins ... Co. v. Albert, 39 Mo. 181; Sedalia ex rel. v ... ...
-
State ex rel. and to Use of Livingston County v. Hunt
... ... Mangelsdorf v. Penn. Fire Ins. Co., 26 S.W.2d 818; ... Puritan Pharmaceutical Co. v ... Bagley, 110 Mo. 42; ... Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Allnut, 39 Mo ... 181; Strottman ... ...