Hammiel v. Fidelity Mut. Aid Ass'n

• Decision Date: 26 March 1906
• Citation: 42 Wash. 448,85 P. 35
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: HAMMIEL v. FIDELITY MUT. AID ASS'N.

85 P. 35

42 Wash. 448

HAMMIEL v. FIDELITY MUT. AID ASS'N.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 26, 1906

Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; John C. Denney, Judge.

Action by J. E. Hammiel against the Fidelity Mutual Aid Association. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

H. T Granger, for appellant.

Coleman & Fogarty, for respondent.

HADLEY J.

This action was brought upon an accident insurance policy, and the suit was instituted in Snohomish county. The defendant is a foreign corporation, organized under the laws of the state of California. The summons was personally served upon C. G Heifner, the statutory agent of the defendant, and was served in King county. The defendant interposed a motion to dismiss the cause on the ground that it is a foreign corporation duly authorized to do business in this state; that, at the time of the service of the summons, it had no office for the transaction of business in Snohomish county; that no person resided in said county upon whom process against defendant might be served; and that the court was therefore without jurisdiction. The motion was supported by affidavit, which stated that, at the time of the service upon Mr. Heifner, a statutory agent of defendant, he was, and for a long time prior thereto had been, continuously a resident of Seattle, King county, and that he was then such resident. The grounds stated in the motion were otherwise fully sustained by affidavit, and the facts so stated were not controverted. The motion to dismiss was overruled, and, the defendant having answered, a trial was had before the court without a jury, resulting in a judgment for plaintiff. The defendant has appealed.

It is assigned that the court erred in overruling appellant's motion to dismiss the action on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction. It is not disputed that appellant had no office in Snohomish county for the transaction of business, and that there was no person in that county upon whom process against appellant could be served. It is also conceded that the service which was made was made upon appellant's statutory agent, who at all times resided in King county. Under the decision in McMaster v. Advance Thresher Co., 10 Wash. 147, 38 P. 760, the trial court was without jurisdiction to determine the cause and render judgment upon the merits. In the case cited the service was upon the statutory agent of a foreign corporation; the agent residing in Clarke county, in which county the service was made. The suit was brought and tried in Garfield county. After a discussion of the statutes, it was held by this court that the court in Garfield county was without jurisdiction to pronounce judgment, and that the judgment and all the proceedings in that court were without authority and void. It was held that the Legislature has provided that actions against corporations shall be brought in a county where the corporation has an office for the transaction of business, or where some person resides upon whom process may be served against such corporation. Section 4854, Ballinger's Ann Codes & St. In the case at bar the appellant had no office for the transaction of business in Snohomish county, and there was no soliciting agent of appellant or other person residing in that county upon whom process might be served against appellant. Respondent concedes that the cited case supports appellant's contention, but argues that this court has modified the doctrine of that case.

State ex rel. Insurance Co. v. Superior Court, 14 Wash. 203, 44 P. 131, is cited. In that case the action was brought in Pierce county, and service of summons was made upon the statutory agent who resided in Thurston county. Reference was made to our statute, which authorizes service of summons in actions against insurance companies to be made upon any agent authorized by such company to solicit insurance within this state. Section...