Moore v. Mut. Reserve Fund Life Ass'n

• Decision Date: 18 September 1901
• Citation: 39 S.E. 637,129 N.C. 31
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: MOORE et al. v. MUTUAL RESERVE FUND LIFE ASS'N (two cases). TAYLOR. v. SAME. ST. JOHN'S LODGE. v. SAME. HANCOCK. v. SAME. POPE. v. SAME. FOY et ux. v. SAME. BARNUM. v. SAME. TISDALE et al. v. SAME (two cases).

39 S.E. 637

129 N.C. 31

MOORE et al.

v.MUTUAL RESERVE FUND LIFE ASS'N (two cases).

TAYLOR.

v.SAME. ST.

JOHN'S LODGE.

v.SAME.

HANCOCK.

v.SAME.

POPE.

v.SAME.

FOY et ux.

v.SAME.

BARNUM.

v.SAME.

TISDALE et al.

v.SAME (two cases).

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 18, 1901.

INSURANCE—FOREIGN CORPORATION—SERVICE OF PROCESS—POWER OF ATTORNEY—REVOCATION.

1. Where a foreign insurance company, as a condition to doing business within the state, authorized service of summons on the insurance commissioner so long as the company had any liabilities remaining unsatisfied in the state, the company cannot make a special appearance in an action on a policy, and have the service of process on the insurance commissioner set aside on the ground that plaintiff has no claim against it for which it is liable, since that is the very question to be determined.

2. Where a foreign insurance company gave a power of attorney to the insurance commissioner, authorizing service of process on him as long as the company had unsatisfied liabilities in the state, the power will not be deemed revoked, the company having admitted outstanding liabilities in the state.

3. Where a foreign insurance company, as a condition to doing business in the state, gave a power of attorney to the insurance commissioner, authorizing a service of process on such commissioner, such power, being contractual in its nature, and given in consideration of the company doing business within the state, was irrevocable.

Appeals from superior court, Craven county; Coble, Judge.

Actions by L. J. Moore, L. J. Moore and others, C. E. Foy and wife, N. Tisdale and wife, N. Tisdale and another, E. H. Barnum, Taylor, Hancock, Pope, and St. John's Lodge against the Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

Simmons & Ward and W. W. Clark, for appellants.

Hinsdale & Lawrence, Shepherd & Shepherd, and T. B. Womack, for appellee.

FURCHES, C. J. This appeal involves identically the same question, and no more, than was decided by this court at its last term in Biggs v. Association, 128 N. C. 5, 37 S. E. 955, and we are bound to reverse the judgment appealed from in this case, or to reverse the judgment of this court made at its last term. There is no question of the importance of this that may not be sustained by arguments on either side. While the defendant stands before this court just as any other foreign corporation would stand, it does not stand just as an individual would stand. The legislature would have no power to prescribe terms to an individual as to whether he should be allowed to do business in this state. He would have the natural and constitutional right to do business here without the permission or comity of the state. That is not so with the defendant. It had no right to do business here without the permission of the state. This being so, the state had the right to prescribe the terms upon which the defendant might carry on its business here. The state, having this right, prescribed the terms, and the defendant accepted them, and proceeded with its business. The defendant, being permitted, proceeded to make contracts with citizens of the state, and became liable to them under these contracts. One of the provisions upon which defendant was allowed to do...