State Ins. Co. v. Granger

• Citation: 62 Iowa 272,17 N.W. 504
• Parties: STATE INS. CO. v. GRANGER AND OTHERS.
• Decision Date: 07 December 1883
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa

62 Iowa 272

17 N.W. 504

STATE INS. CO.

v.GRANGER AND OTHERS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed December 7, 1883.

Appeal from Story district court.

The petition states, in substance, that the defendant Granger recovered a a judgment against the plaintiff on a policy of insurance, and that no notice of the pendency of the action was served on plaintiff, who has a meritorious defense to said action. The relief asked is that the judgment be set aside, and that plaintiff may have a new trial of said action as the statute provides. The court found for the defendant and dismissed the petition. The plaintiff appeals.Wright, Cummins & Wright, for appellant.

W. E. Miller and Martin & Sellers, for appellees.

SEEVERS, J.

On May 15, 1880, one Shaffer was the plaintiff's agent at Colo, Story county. He took an application on that day from the defendant Granger, and forwarded the same to the plaintiff at Des Moines who issued a policy of insurance thereon on which the judgment was recovered which the plaintiff asks to have set aside. Shaffer was a soliciting agent only, and he continued to act in that capacity until after the fifteenth day of September, 1880. In fact, Shaffer continued to act as such agent until in the “spring of 1881.” On the fifteenth day of September, 1880, D. F. Bishop was appointed by plaintiff as its soliciting and recording agent at Colo. A recording agent has power to issue policies, but a soliciting agent has not. In August, 1881, an action on the policy was commenced in Story county, and the original notice therein was served on Bishop as the plaintiff's agent. No other service was made. No appearance was made to the action by the plaintiff, and a judgment was rendered against it for the amount of the policy. The plaintiff is a resident of Polk county, but, as the loss occurred in Story county, the district court of that county has jurisdiction of the subject-matter. Code, § 2584. The only question to be determined, therefore, is whether the court obtained jurisdiction over the plaintiff by the service of notice on Bishop.

1. The Code provides that in suits against corporations service may be made on any agent employed in the general management of its business. Section 2612. It is not claimed Bishop was such an agent. Section 2613 of the Code is as follows: “When a corporation, company, or individual has, for the transaction of any business, an office or agency in any county other than that in which the principal resides, service may be made on any agent or clerk employed in such office or agency in all actions growing out of or connected with the business of that office or agency.”

It will be observed the service must be made on some one “employed in such office or agency in all actions growing out of or connected with the business of that office or agency.” As we understand, service could be made on Bishop, and the plaintiff bound thereby, in all actions growing out of or connected with ( that) his office or agency. Beyond this the statute does not go. Suppose there were two agents or agencies in the same county, legal service could not be made on any person employed in one office or agency when the business out of which the action grew was transacted in the other office or agency. Again, suppose an agent is removed or he ceases to act, and the agency is for a time closed, and afterwards another agent is appointed and thereafter there is such an office or agency, can a person employed in the latter be legally served with notice in an action growing out of business done by the former agent, and would the principal be bound thereby? We think not. The action must have grown out of or been connected with...