Southern Ins. Co. v. Wolverton Hardware Co.
| Decision Date | 26 April 1892 |
| Citation | 19 S.W. 615 |
| Parties | SOUTHERN INS. CO. OF NEW ORLEANS v. WOLVERTON HARDWARE CO. <I>et al.</I> |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by the Wolverton Hardware Company and others against the Southern Insurance Company of New Orleans on a judgment. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Potter, Potter & Giddings, for appellant. C. L. Herbert and W. A. Ledbetter, for appellees.
This cause was referred to the commission of appeals for its a ward by consent of parties. It is a suit brought in the district court of Cooke county upon a judgment obtained by the appellees, the Wolverton Hardware Company and others, against the appellant, the Southern Insurance Company of New Orleans, La., April 15, 1891, in the United States court in the Indian Territory, for the third judicial division, held in the town of Ardmore, on a policy of insurance issued by the appellant company to one J. C. Ray, and by him assigned to the appellees. The petition also declares on the policy itself, but there was no proof at the trial in support of a demand arising from a loss under the policy, and the issue is as to the validity of the judgment of the federal court at Ardmore, the objection to its validity being that it was a judgment by default obtained without service of the writ or summons upon the appellant; that John T. Alexander, upon whom service was had as the agent of appellant, was not in fact its agent. Trial was had without a jury, and judgment was rendered in favor of the appellees.
In a suit on a judgment rendered by a court of another state, the defendant may prove the want of jurisdiction either of the subject-matter or person in the court that rendered the judgment. This doctrine does not conflict with the provisions of the constitution of the United States that "full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state," nor with the act of congress that "* * * said records and judicial proceedings, authenticated as aforesaid, shall have such faith and credit given them as they have by the law or usage in the courts of the state from which such records are or shall be taken." Chum v. Gray, 51 Tex. 112. State courts have the same right to examine into judgments rendered by the federal courts of another state or territory as of the state or territorial courts. 2 Black, Judgm. §§ 938, 939.
Appellant, though a foreign corporation, became amenable to the jurisdiction of the courts of the Indian Territory by entering in and doing business therein, and was properly sued in a court sitting therein. Colorado Iron-Works v. Sierra Grande Min. Co., (Colo. Sup.) 25 Pac. Rep. 327. But, in order to acquire jurisdiction of the person of the appellant, it was necessary that service of the writ should be had upon an agent representing it. As it was not shown upon the trial what the law of the Indian Territory was with respect to service of notice of suit on a foreign or other corporation when the alleged service was made, it must be presumed that it was the same as in our state. Our statute provides that, "in suits against any incorporated company or joint-stock association, the citation may be served on the president, secretary, or treasurer of such company or association, or upon the local agent representing such company or association in the county in which the suit is brought, or by leaving a copy of the same at the principal office of the company during office hours." Rev. St. art. 1223. Service was had upon John T. Alexander, who was charged in the complaint to be the local agent of the appellant in the town of Ardmore. The summons was against the appellant, and the return showed service on Alexander as the person described in the complaint as the agent of defendant.
It remains to determine whether or not the appellant has shown that Alexander was not its agent at the time he was served with the summons in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Bankers' Ins. Co. v. Lee
...Co. v. Robinson, 55 Nev. 117; Liverpool Ins. Co. v. McLaughlin, 175 P. 248; Noris v. Hartford Ins. Co., 57 S.C. 358; Southern Ins. Co. v. Wolverton Co., 19 S.W. 615; Wisconsin R. Co. v. Phoenix L. Ins. Co., 123 Wis. 313. The authority of a soliciting agent of an insurance company to take ap......
-
Coca-Cola Co. v. Harmar Bottling Co.
...141, 53 S.W. 1016, 1016 (1899); Burgess v. W. Union Tel. Co., 92 Tex. 125, 46 S.W. 794, 795 (1898); S. Ins. Co. of New Orleans v. Wolverton Hardware Co., 19 S.W. 615, 615 (Tex. 1892); James v. James, 81 Tex. 373, 16 S.W. 1087, 1089 (1891); Abercrombie v. Stillman, 77 Tex. 589, 14 S.W. 196, ......
-
Wyeth Hardware & Manufacturing Co. v. H. F. Lang & Co.
... ... 457; Cole v ... Cunningham, 133 U.S. 107; Renier v. Hurlbut, 50 ... N.W. 783; Ins. Co. v. Company, 19 S.W. 615; 3 Am ... and Eng. Encyclopedia of Law, p. 521; Black on Judgments, ... ...
-
Bankers Life Insurance Company v. Robbins
... ... contract of insurance. ( North American Fire-Ins. Co. v ... Throop, 22 Mich. 146; New York Bowery Fire Ins. Co ... v ... Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Williams, 15 S.W ... 478; Southern Ins. Co. v. Wolverton Hardware Co., 19 ... S.W. 615; Reyer v. Odd ... ...