Seamans v. Temple Co.
| Decision Date | 21 May 1895 |
| Citation | 63 N.W. 408,105 Mich. 400 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | SEAMANS v. TEMPLE CO. |
Error to circuit court, Muskegon county; Fred J. Russell, Judge.
Action by S. H. Seamans, receiver of a mutual life insurance company, against the Temple Company, to recover an assessment. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Turner, Turner & Turner (George E. Sutherland, of counsel), for appellant.
Bunker & Carpenter, for appellee.
The plaintiff is receiver of a mutual fire insurance company organized and doing business at Milwaukee, under a statute of Wisconsin which authorizes such companies to do business in that state and elsewhere. This company has never complied with the statutes of Michigan by filing the prescribed statement and obtaining the requisite authority to do business here. How. Ann. St. � 4331 et seq. It appears however, that it has done business in most if not all, of the states, their laws to the contrary notwithstanding; and, although its officers testify that it has had no agents, it is shown that prospective risks have been examined by persons called "inspectors," who ordinarily carried applications, and, as stated by a witness for the plaintiff, "filed them out whenever he and the applicant could agree upon the question of taking insurance"; and "that he had authority to take applications to submit to the office." The witness was asked if the company had any other agents than the inspectors, to which he answered: The application and premium notes being signed by the applicant received at the home office in Wisconsin, a policy would be forwarded by mail, and assessments would be demanded and paid in the same way. That such inspectors were agents of the company, within the statute cited, is plain, and the whole scheme is a flagrant attempt to evade the provisions of the laws of the several states which are intended to restrict the insurance business. The testimony in this case shows that the defendant company succeeded a partnership named Ames & Frost and that insurance upon the property now owned by the defendant was obtained in the method described. The record fails to show for, if it does, we have overlooked it) whether the defendant's policy was given by way of renewal at the expiration of the Ames & Frost policy or upon a transfer of the business to the defendant. Perhaps it is not important. For some reason a new policy was issued, the application and so-called "note" being filled out at the plaintiff's office in Milwaukee, and sent to defendant by mail, who signed and returned the same by mail. It does not appear that any inspector took part in this particular transaction. A receiver, being appointed in Wisconsin, took charge of the affairs of the insurance company, and made an assessment upon the members, and this action is brought for such assessment. Counsel for plaintiff contends that the insurance company has not done business in this state, but that the contract is one made in Wisconsin, to be performed there, and that it is therefore valid, and, that being so, the plaintiff may sue and recover upon it in the courts of this state under the rule of comity between states. This rule applies to corporations as well as to natural persons. How. Ann. St. � 8135. But the right of a foreign corporation to sue in our courts is limited-First, by statute (section 8136), and, second, by the general rule that the doctrine of state comity will not be applied in behalf of a corporation seeking to recover upon a claim or contract expressly prohibited by law, or one which is clearly at variance with the settled policy of the state. Thompson v. Waters, 25 Mich. 214; Christian Union v. Yount, 101 U.S. 356. It is the policy of this state to limit the business of insurance to such corporations, domestic...
To continue reading
Request your trial