Germania Ins Co of New Orleans v. State of Wisconsin
| Citation | 30 L.Ed. 461,7 S.Ct. 260,119 U.S. 473 |
| Parties | GERMANIA INS. CO. OF NEW ORLEANS v. STATE OF WISCONSIN |
| Decision Date | 13 December 1886 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
This is a writ of error brought under section 5 of the act of March 3, 1875, (chapter 137, 18 St. 470,) for the review of an order of the circuit court remanding a suit which had been entered in that court as a suit removed from a state court. The record shows a suit brought by the state of Wisconsin, in one of its own courts, against the Germania Insurance Company of New Orleans, an insurance company incorporated by the state of Louisiana, and having its principal office and place of business in New Orleans, to recover certain statutory penalties for doing business in Wiscon in without complying with the laws of that state in reference to foreign insurance companies. The only process in the cause was served December 29, 1885, on L. D. Harmon, a citizen of Wisconsin, and described in the sheriff's return as 'being then and there an agent of the said defendant.'
On the twelfth of April, 1886, the insurance company came, and, entering 'its special appearance in the action * * * for the purpose of this motion only,' moved the court 'to vacate and set aside the pretended service of summons' as above stated, 'and all and every proceeding in said action subsequent thereto, for want of jurisdiction, and irregularity in said pretended service of process.' In support of this motion an affidavit of the vice-president and of the secretary of the company was filed, to the effect that Harmon was never the agent of the company, and that the company had no agent in the state, and had had no agent, and had not transacted insurance business, there for 10 years then last past. Before any action was had upon this motion, the company, on the same twelfth of April, presented to the court its petition for the removal of the suit to the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Wisconsin, in which is set forth the motion to set aside the service of the summons in the action, and the special appearance of the company for the purposes of that motion only, and the grounds of the motion. The petition then states 'that the suit arises out of a controversy between the parties in regard to the operation and effect of certain provisions of the laws of the state of Wisconsin, said to be in conflict with the constitution of the United States in various particulars, and necessitating a construction thereof, among which subjects of controversy are the following, to-wit: 'Whether the attempt of the state to prevent the company from doing business in the way it was done was not in conflict with section 1, art. 14, and with section 8, art. 1, of the constitution; and whether the aforesaid proceedings in said court, and the attempt to proceed against your petitioner by service of summons or process upon one not authorized to represent it, with- out appearance in court, constitutes 'due process of law,' within the meaning of the constitution of the United States.'
The state court refused to allow a removal, and thereupon the company took a copy of the record to the circuit court, where proceedings were had on the twenty-ninth of May in accordance with the following docket...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People of Puerto Rico v. Russell Co Sucesores En 10 8212 13, 1933
...S.Ct. 192, 39 L.Ed. 231; Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co., 194 U.S. 48, 24 S.Ct. 598, 48 L.Ed. 870; Germania Insurance Co. v. Wisconsin, 119 U.S. 473, 475, 7 S.Ct. 260, 30 L.Ed. 461; Arkansas v. Kansas & Texas Coal Co., supra; see Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Commissioners, 1......
-
Thompson v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey
...248, 257, 6 S. Ct. 28, 29 L. Ed. 388; Patton v. Brady, 184 U. S. 608, 611, 22 S. Ct. 493, 46 L. Ed. 713; Germania Ins. Co. v. Wisconsin, 119 U. S. 473, 476, 7 S. Ct. 260, 30 L. Ed. 461; Ray v. Poulnot (D. C.) 46 F.(2d) 677. And it must be remembered also that, if the right asserted by plain......
-
Driscoll v. Burlington-Bristol Bridge Co.
...192 194, 39 L.Ed. 231; Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co., 194 U.S. 48, 24 S.Ct. 598, 48 L.Ed. 870; Germania Insurance Co. v. Wisconsin, 119 U. S. 473, 475, 7 S.Ct. 260, 30 L.Ed. 461; State of Arkansas v. Kansas & Texas Coal Co., supra; see Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Hickman et a......
-
Wynn v. Philip Morris, Inc.
...S.Ct. 437, 28 L.Ed. 482 (1884); Stone v. South Carolina, 117 U.S. 430, 6 S.Ct. 799, 29 L.Ed. 962 (1886); Germania Ins. Co. v. Wisconsin, 119 U.S. 473, 7 S.Ct. 260, 30 L.Ed. 461 (1886)). The State of Alabama is listed on the face of the complaint as the beneficiary of the action brought by t......