Parke v. Commonwealth Insurance Co.
| Decision Date | 16 March 1863 |
| Citation | 44 Pa. 422 |
| Parties | Parke <I>versus</I> The Commonwealth Insurance Company. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
The service of the summons was set aside because made "on an agent authorized to effect insurance only," by which words we understand a travelling agent for procuring applications for insurance, to be transmitted to the regular office of the company for action.
Is such service authorized by the Act of 8th April 1851, § 6, which allows corporations to be sued in any county where they may "have an agency or transact any business"? We think not. This term seems to us to mean corporations that have branch offices, or agencies for the transaction of their business. That corporations should be liable to be sued in any county where they had ever had any matters of business treated about by an agent, or by any plaintiff who may choose to sue them there, whether this claim originated there or not, is surely beyond the intention of the legislature. This intention is better expressed in the Act of 1857, allowing insurance companies to be sued in the counties where the property insured is situated; and for trading companies, the Act of 1851 rightly provides that they may be sued in any county where they habitually transact business by an agency or branch. This case does not come within the spirit of the act, for this claim originated at the principal office of the company at Harrisburg, and relates to business with which a travelling agent for obtaining applications has nothing to do. He was not an agent for any purpose of this claim.
The judgment must be set aside, and the proceedings affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Surety Co. of New York v. District Court of Third Judicial District of State
... ... CORPORATIONS-FOREIGN-INSURANCE ... COMPANIES-VENUE IN ACTIONS AGAINST-REMEDY WHEN SUED IN WRONG ... COUNTY-APPEARANCE-WAIVER OF ... Co., 107 Ore. 18, 212 P. 789; Richman v. Wenaha ... County, 74 Wash. 370, 133 P. 467; Parke v ... Commonwealth Ins. Co., 44 Pa. 422; McCauley v ... Murdock, 97 Ind. 229; Boorum v. Ray, 72 ... ...
-
Shambe v. Delaware & H. R. Co.
...Co. v. Com., 234 U.S. 579; America Bank v. Bank, 261 U.S. 171. The having of a branch office answers the requirement of the act: Parke v. Ins. Co., 44 Pa. 422; Lobb v. Co., 285 Pa. 45; Kraus v. Tobacco Co., 284 Pa. 569. The defendant had an agency in Phila. within the meaning of the act: Pa......
-
Kuyalowicz v. Schuylkill Gas and Electric Company
... ... and Light Company dated April 12, 1920, filed in the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth on June 2, 1920, and letters-patent duly issued thereon by the Governor under date of June 4, 1920 ... In Parke Bros. & Co. v. Oil City Boiler Works, 204 Pa. 453, 457, the Supreme Court, in speaking of rules, ... ...
-
Southern Coal Exchange v. Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co.
...and sale of iron and steel. The section just quoted was construed in relation to an insurance company in the case of Parke v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 44 Pa. 422, in which service was had on an agent whose business was to procure applications for insurance, and it was held not to be a valid s......