Presbyterian Ministers' Fund v. Thomas

• Decision Date: 14 November 1905
• Citation: 126 Wis. 281,105 N.W. 801
• Parties: PRESBYTERIAN MINISTERS' FUND v. THOMAS.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

126 Wis. 281

105 N.W. 801

PRESBYTERIAN MINISTERS' FUND

v.THOMAS.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Nov. 14, 1905.

Appeal from Circuit Court, La Crosse County; J. J. Fruit, Judge.

Action by the Presbyterian Ministers' Fund against W. D. Thomas. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Plaintiff, a Pennsylvania corporation, brought action to recover on a note given for the first premium on a life insurance policy on the life of defendant, a resident of Wisconsin. It is alleged in the answer, in effect, that plaintiff is a foreign corporation engaged in furnishing life insurance, incorporated under the laws of Pennsylvania, and having its home office in Philadelphia, and that it has not been licensed to do business in Wisconsin, and has not complied with chapter 89, Rev. St. 1898, and amendments thereto; that the note in question was made in Wisconsin, and that plaintiff represented it was authorized to do business therein; and that it discriminates in favor of some and against other individuals and between insurants of the same class. A jury was waived, and the case tried by the court, and judgment entered for plaintiff for $227, amount of the note for first premium, from which judgment this appeal was taken.Winter & Esch, for appellant.

Geo. W. Bunge, for respondent.

KERWIN, J. (after stating the facts).

It is conceded that the plaintiff is a Pennsylvania corporation, and that it never complied with the laws of this state respecting the doing of insurance business herein, or the making of contracts with residents of this state. The contention on the part of the defendant to reverse the judgment is that the contract in question was made in Wisconsin, therefore void for the reason that plaintiff had no authority to do business or make contracts in Wisconsin, without compliance with our statutes, and that, even if made in Pennsylvania, still it cannot be enforced here. The contract of insurance was made by correspondence; the plaintiff sending its application from its office in Philadelphia to defendant at La Crosse, Wis. Defendant filled out and signed the application at La Crosse and forwarded it to plaintiff's office in Philadelphia, offering to take the insurance in accordance with the application, and directing the issue of the policy. In compliance therewith plaintiff issued the policy at its office in Philadelphia and mailed the same to defendant, upon receipt of which defendant signed and mailed to plaintiff a note for the first premium, which note recited that it was for balance of first premium on the policy and payable at Philadelphia. The court below found that the contract was made in Philadelphia, Pa., and we are inclined to the opinion that it was right in so holding. Defendant's proposition for insurance was accepted at Philadelphia when the policy was issued and mailed to defendant in compliance with the application, and the note in suit given for the first premium, although made and signed in Wisconsin, was payable in Philadelphia, Pa. We think, therefore, the contract in question was a Pennsylvania contract. While as a general rule the construction and validity of a purely personal contract depends on the law of the place where made, if the contract be made in one place to be performed in another, the place of payment and performance is the place of the contract. Brown et al. v. Gates, 120 Wis. 349, 97 N. W. 221, 98 N. W. 205.

We are not concerned here whether this contract could be enforced outside of Wisconsin or not. The question is, can it be enforced in Wisconsin? Section 1978, Rev. St. 1898, provides: “No corporation, association, partnership or individual shall do any business of insurance of any kind, or make any guaranty, contract, or pledge for the payment of annuities or endowments or money to the families or representatives of any policy or certificate holder, or the like, in this state or with any resident of this state except according to the conditions and restrictions of these statutes. And the term insurance corporation as used in this chapter may be taken to embrace every corporation, association, partnership or individual engaging in any such business.” This statute is broad and general, and prohibits all persons and corporations from doing any business of insurance or making any insurance contract in this state, or with any resident of this state, except according to the restrictions prescribed by statute. The restrictions and conditions imposed will be found in sections 1220, 1947-1951, 1953, 1954, Rev. St. 1898, and are provisions in the interest and for the protection of residents of this state against irresponsible insurance companies. Section 1978, Rev. St. 1898, above quoted, was obviously intended to prevent the making of any insurance contract with a resident of this state by any individual or corporation who had not complied with these statutes. As said by Mr. Justice Winslow, in speaking for the court, in Rose v. Kimberly & Clark Co., 89 Wis. at page 550, 62 N. W. at page 527 (27 L. R. A. 556, 46 Am. St. Rep. 855): “The evil to be corrected is not the writing of a policy by an unlicensed company within this state alone, but the writing of such a policy at all. Bearing in mind the object of the statute and the evil to be corrected, it is very plain that the object will be largely defeated, and the evil will flourish as before, if it be held that companies without license can...