Seamans v. Christian Brothers Mill Company
| Decision Date | 11 November 1896 |
| Docket Number | 10,076--(27) |
| Citation | 68 N.W. 1065,66 Minn. 205 |
| Parties | S. H. SEAMANS, Receiver, v. CHRISTIAN BROTHERS MILL COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the district court for Hennepin county, in favor of defendant, entered in pursuance of the findings and order of Smith, J. Affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
C. C Joselyn and Geo. E. Sutherland, for appellant.
Warner Richardson & Lawrence, for respondent.
The Wisconsin Mutual Fire Insurance Company is, as its name indicates, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Wisconsin to carry on a mutual fire insurance business. It became insolvent, and plaintiff was appointed receiver for it by the courts of that state. Defendant, a corporation organized under the laws of this state and doing business therein, procured from said insurance company a policy of insurance on its property situated in Minneapolis in this state. This suit is brought to recover a balance of unpaid premium claimed to be due on the policy. One of the defenses alleged by defendant, and sustained by the court, is that said insurance company never complied in any respect with the statutes of this state. Judgment was ordered for defendant, and from the judgment entered accordingly, plaintiff appeals.
The contract of insurance was made by correspondence between the two corporations. The trial court found as a fact that this contract was made in this state. Appellant assails this finding as not supported by the evidence, but, from the view we take of it, the point is not material; as we are of the opinion that even if the contract was made in Wisconsin, as contended by appellant, we would still refuse to enforce it, as being contrary to the policy of our laws, and an attempt to evade those laws. Among the statutory provisions material here are the following sections of G. S. 1894:
Section 3167 provides that on complying with certain conditions the insurance commissioner may issue a license or certificate to foreign companies, authorizing them to transact business in this state; and section 3199 provides that no foreign mutual fire insurance company shall do business in this state unless it has an actual cash surplus of $ 200,000 over all liabilities, which the court found this insurance company did not have. Many other restrictions on such companies may be found in the sections immediately preceding and those following the ones above mentioned.
These statutory provisions are police regulations intended to protect people and property in this state against spurious and irresponsible insurance companies. It is plainly the intent of these statutory provisions to compel all such insurers doing business in, or taking risks on property in this state to comply with our local laws and submit to our local courts. Neither can there be any doubt about the authority of the legislature to pass such laws. Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168, 8 Wall. 168, 19 L.Ed. 357; Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648, 15 S.Ct. 207, 39 L.Ed. 297. It is a general rule that a contract made in one state will be enforced in another state, though contrary to the laws or...
To continue reading
Request your trial