Leasure v. Union Mutual Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 10 November 1879 |
| Citation | 91 Pa. 491 |
| Parties | Leasure <I>versus</I> Union Mutual Life Insurance Co. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before SHARSWOOD, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, TRUNKEY and STERRETT, JJ. PAXSON and GREEN, JJ., absent
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland county: Of October and November Term 1878, No. 318.
Foster & Markle, for plaintiff in error.—The company acquired the right to insure property in this state under the Act of April 11th 1868, Pamph. L. 89. That act was designed to establish a complete system, under which alone such a company incorporated in another state could do business in Pennsylvania: Thorne v. Travellers Ins. Co., 30 P. F. Smith 15.
To sustain the position of the plaintiff, it must be shown that there is a law of Pennsylvania conferring on the company the right to loan money and take mortgages.
The Act of 26th April 1855, expressly forbids corporations other than such as shall have been incorporated under the laws of this state, or any foreign government, potentate or power from acquiring and holding any real estate within this Commonwealth, directly in their corporate name, or by or through any trustee or other device whatsoever, unless specially authorized to hold such property by the laws of this Commonwealth: Purd. Dig. pp. 391-2, pl. 56.
The power to grant life insurance policies is one thing, and the right of a foreign corporation to transact business in their corporate name without authority of law, when the companies incorporated under our own laws could not do it, is another. If this power is recognised by this court it will be difficult to tell to what limit it may be carried or for what purposes used. Foreign capital may be withdrawn from the reach of the taxing power of this Commonwealth, and revenues which ought to belong to this state will go to another state.
Edgar Cowan, for defendant in error.—A corporation of one state may sue in the courts of another. If it may sue, why may it not make a contract? The right to sue is one of the powers it derives from its charter. If the courts of another country take notice of its existence as a corporation, so far as to allow it to maintain a suit and exercise that power, why should not its existence be recognised for other purposes, and the corporation permitted to exercise another power, which is given to it by the same law and the same sovereignty, when the last-mentioned power does not come in conflict with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phoenix Silk Manufacturing Co. of Paterson, N.J. v. Reilly
...upon other grounds. The mere right of a foreign corporation to maintain a personal action in this state may be conceded: Leasure v. Ins. Co., 91 Pa. 491; Campbell, etc., Co. v. Hering, supra. Nor can there be doubt that every person is presumed to have conformed to the law until the contrar......
-
Mershon & Co. v. Pottsville Lumber Co., Ltd.
... ... sec. 971; Paul v ... Virginia, 75 U.S. 168; Doyle v. Ins. Co., 94 ... U.S. 535; Ins. Co. v. French, 18 Howard, 407; ... Co. v. Ferguson, 113 U.S. 727; Leasure v. Ins ... Co., 91 Pa. 491; Com. v. Standard Oil Co., 101 ... 153; Kilgore v ... Smith, 122 Pa. 57; Leasure v. Life Ins. Co., 91 ... Pa. 491; Bank v. Tanning Co., 170 Pa. 4; ... ...
-
Blakeslee Manufacturing Co. v. Hilton
... ... controverted:" Leasure v. Life Ins. Co., 91 Pa ... The ... courts of ... ...
-
Board of Supervisors of Quitman County v. Stritze
...That is a matter between the board and the state, in which strangers have no right to be heard. Grant v. Coal Co., 80 Pa. 208; Leasure v. Insurance Co., 91 Pa. 491; Mallett v. Simpson, 94 N.C. Cowell v. Springs Co., 100 U.S. 55, 25 L.Ed. 547; Jones v. Habersham, 107 U.S. 174, 27 L.Ed. 401, ......