Maine Guarantee Co. of Portland v. Cox

• Decision Date: 13 February 1896
• Citation: 42 N.E. 915,146 Ind. 107
• Parties: MAINE GUARANTEE CO. OF PORTLAND v. COX et al.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

146 Ind. 107

42 N.E. 915

MAINE GUARANTEE CO. OF PORTLAND

v.COX et al.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Feb. 13, 1896.

Appeal from circuit court, Madison county; A. Ellison, Judge.

Suit by the Maine Guarantee Company, of Portland, Me., against Limon M. Cox and others, to foreclose a mortgage. From a judgment for plaintiff, after special findings and conclusions of law, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

W. P. Fishback, W. P. Kappes, and E. E. Hendee, for appellant. Henry McMahon and Mr. Van Codel, for appellees.

HOWARD, J.

The appellant, a foreign corporation, brought suit to collect a debt due from the appellee Cox, and to foreclose a mortgage given to secure the same. The court made special findings and conclusions of law in favor of the appellant, and rendered judgment for the full amount due, with foreclosure of the mortgage. It appears from the special findings, and from the evidence, that the bond and mortgage sued on had been assigned to appellant by the People's Building Loan & Savings Association, also a foreign corporation, having its place of business at Geneva, in the state of New York. The court found that neither the appellant nor its assignor, the said building and loan association, had ever filed with the auditor of state any statement such as required by the statutes of this state to be filed by foreign building and loan associations, and that neither of said corporations has any organization as a building and loan association in this state, to do or transact business of any kind. The court allowed appellant's claim for money lent on the mortgage, and for tax liens paid, with interest to date of judgment, but refused to allow anything for amounts claimed by appellant by reason of bonus, premium, dues, and other charges made by said building and loan association under its rules and by-laws. There is no doubt as to the power of the legislature to prescribe the conditions upon which a corporation organized under and by virtue of the laws of another state may do business in this state. Insurance Co. v. Harrah, 47 Ind. 236;Hockett v. State, 105 Ind. 250, 5 N. E. 178;State v. Phipps, 50 Kan. 609, 31 Pac. 1097. As shown in Elston v. Piggott, 94 Ind. 14, however, a foreign corporation, unless forbidden by law, may loan money in this state, take mortgage security therefor, and have judgment of foreclosure, in case the debt thereby created is not paid. It is also clear, we think, that though a foreign corporation may be prohibited from...