Minneapolis Fire & Marine Mutual Insurance Co. v. Norman
Decision Date | 11 February 1905 |
Citation | 85 S.W. 229,74 Ark. 190 |
Parties | MINNEAPOLIS FIRE & MARINE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. NORMAN |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Ashley Circuit Court, ZACHARIAH T. WOOD, Judge.
Affirmed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
The appellant makes this statement of the issues presented
The insurance company has failed, and a receiver represents it. The bond of the sureties is conditioned as required by section 4339, Kirby's Digest, which is the bond covering insurance by "stock companies," as distinguished from mutual companies, for which a form of bond is designated in section 4348.
In determining the case it is assumed that the facts alleged by the appellants, towit: That the policy in question, which was of standard form used by stock companies, was not such a policy as the insurance company was authorized to issue, and that it was not authorized to issue standard form policies but only mutual form policies, and that such facts appeared from the articles of incorporation on file in the Auditor's office at the time the bond was given, and when the policy was issued.
The sureties testified that they expected the insurance company to do a mutual business. Clay Sloan, then Auditor of State testified that he would not have licensed the insurance company to do business in the State unless it gave such a bond as the one sued on. He required this class of bond from all foreign insurance companies, whether mutual or not, as a condition precedent to doing business in the State.
Judgment affirmed.
Cantrell & Loughborough, for appellants.
Policies issued by a mutual assessment company for fixed cash premium are ultra vires and void. 60 N.W. 232; 96 Ia. 129; 85 N.W. 747; 29 S.E. 533; 71 Wis. 621; 42 Ohio 555; 50 Ohio 145; 129 Ill. 440; 40 N.W. 775; 40 S.E. 512; 37 Me. 256; 91 N.W. 266. The surety is not liable. 139 U.S. 24; Brandt, Sur. 93; 72 Mo. 387; 65 Cal. 358; 23 Ala. 807; 9 Mo.App. 63; 81 N.Y. 406; 29 Mo. 267; 67 Ind. 541; Brandt, Sur. § 528; Throop, Pub. Off. § 231. Appellant as surety is not liable under the terms of the bond. 4 Pick. 314; 90 N.Y. 116; 2 Pick. 223; 61 Mich. 423.
Pugh & Wiley, for appellee.
The surety is liable. 97 N.W. 110; 80 S.W. 576; 126 N. Car. 320; 128 N. Car. 366; 170 U.S. 144; 183 U.S. 402; 145 Mass. 302; 44 N.H. 198; L. R. 19 Ch. 478. Fraud and misrepresentations imposed on surety is no defense. Stearns, Surety, 158; 53 Me. 284; 32 S.C. 229; 48 Cal. 610; 79 Ala. 550; 63 Me. 212; 16 Wall, 1; 63 N.Y. 389; 33 Ala. 106; 44 N.H. 198; L. R. 19 Ch. 478; 22 Wis. 376; 27 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.), 467.
HILL, C. J., (after stating the facts).
A mutual insurance company, authorized to insure property upon the assessment or mutual plan, enters the State, gives the bond required of stock companies issuing standard policies, and proceeds to do an insurance business on the standard insurance lines, instead of the mutual or assessment lines. Its charter is filed with the Auditor when it qualifies to do business in the State. Is such company and the sureties on its bond liable for loss under a standard policy?
The appellant contends that the contract of insurance was ultra vires, and not binding on the insurance company; that, even if binding on the insurance company, the sureties on its bond are not liable, because they had a right to expect the insurance company would do a lawful business, and their obligation bound them only to indemnify against its lawful contracts, not its ultra vires ones.
Judge Thompson says: 6 Thompson on Corp. § 7960.
Applying these principles to the case at bar, then, no negligence in failing to ascertain the charter powers of the insurance company can be imputed to the policy holders. The insurance company came clothed with authority from the State of Arkansas, through the action of these sureties, with authority to write the policy in question; and, as Judge Thompson expresses it, "the domestic citizen is not required to see that the foreign corporation has observed the laws before he enters into a contract with it."
A mutual building and loan corporation of Minnesota went into the State of Wisconsin, and there deposited, as a condition precedent under the laws of Wisconsin to do business in that State, securities of the value of $ 100,000. The association failed, and a contest ensued between the receiver of the association, acting for all the stockholders, and a receiver acting for the Wisconsin stockholders, who claimed these securities for their benefit. After holding it was within the power of the association to enter into such obligation in favor of the State of Wisconsin, the court then considered the ultra vires defense pleaded thereto, and said ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fort Smith Light & Traction Co. v. Kelley
... ... of the contract had reference to the mutual ... protection of the parties in matters where ... ...
-
North American Union v. Johnson
... ... Insurance" Commissioner of Arkansas was invalid ... \xC2" ... 411; Cathcart v ... Equitable Mutual Life Assn., 111 Iowa 471, 82 N.W ... 964; ver Fire Ins. Co. v. McClelland, 9 ... Colo. 11, 9 P ... 377, 85 S.W. 1127; ... Minn. Fire & Marine Co. v. Norman ... 74 Ark ... 190, 85 S.W. 229; ... ...
-
Federal Union Surety Company v. Flemister
... ... substance that the defendant, National Mutual Fire Insurance ... Company, of Omaha, Nebraska, ... case of Minneapolis Fire & Marine Mutual Insurance ... Company v ... ...
- Arkansas National Bank v. School District No. 99