Stone v. Travelers Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 31 October 1883 |
| Parties | STONE v. THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Linn Court of Common Pleas.--HON. THOS. WHITAKER, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Dyer, Lee & Ellis for plaintiff in error.
Lithgow & Elliott for defendant in error.
The defendant, a non-resident insurance company, incorporated under the laws of the state of Connecticut, was sued by the plaintiff in the common pleas court of Linn county on the 12th day of April, 1880. The writ of summons was directed to the sheriff of St. Louis city, commanding him to summon the “proper officer of the Travelers Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut, to appear,” etc., before said common pleas court. This writ was returned executed by the sheriff of St. Louis city by delivering a copy of the petition and writ “to Horace Power, state agent of the Travelers Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut, the within named defendant.”
The defendant appeared specially and moved to quash the writ and return, for the following reasons: (1) Because the writ is directed to the sheriff of the city of St. Louis. (2) Because it appears on the face of the writ that it does not require the defendant to appear, but requires some officer of the company to appear. (3) Because it appears by the writ of summons that defendant is a foreign corporation organized under the laws of Connecticut, and must be sued in the county in which its agent authorized to accept service is found, and it cannot be served by and through an officer of said company. (4) Because the writ and return of the sheriff are void. (5) Because the return is insufficient.
Pending this discussion of the motion, on application of plaintiff, the court made an order allowing the writ to be amended by striking out of the mandate thereof, the words “the proper officer of,” thus leaving a command to summon the defendant; and although the writ is copied into the transcript before us as it was originally issued, as the writ was not void and the amendment was permissible, we will regard it as having been made. Jarbee v. Steamboat, 19 Mo. 141. It is perhaps fairly inferable from the recitals in the bill of exceptions that the amendment was actually made.
The return of the officer that he had, in the manner stated, served “Horace Power, state agent of the Travelers Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut, the within named defendant,” sufficiently designates said Power as the person appointed by the defendant under section 6013 of the Revised Statutes, upon whom process might be served in suits instituted against said company. The person required to be appointed under said section, is designated therein both as an agent and an attorney. The return would have been more precise if it had described Power as the state agent of the defendant for the service of process or to receive service of process, but that he was such agent may be fairly implied from the use of the words “state agent.” We are of opinion that the return of the officer is, in this particular, sufficient.
The principal question presented by the record is whether in a suit instituted in Linn county, against a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Denver & R.G.R. Co. v. Roller
...Co., 5 S.D. 57, 68, 58 N.W. 9, 23 L.R.A. 490; Palmer v. Pennsylvania Co., 35 Hun, 369; McNichol v. Agency, 74 Mo. 457; Stone v. Insurance Co., 78 Mo. 655, 658. 2. the courts in California have jurisdiction of the subject-matter of this action? This question is dependent to a great extent up......
-
In re State ex rel. Standard Fire Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut v. Gantt
...Gold Issue M. & M. Co. v. Insurance Co., 267 Mo. 524, 184 S.W. 999, is precisely in point. All of these cases may be distinguished. The Stone case, supra, because, the plaintiff resided in Johnson County, the of action accrued in Johnson County, and the suit was brought in Johnson County. S......
-
State v. Gantt
...no valid service can be had upon any other agent (Baile v. Insurance Co., 68 Mo. 617; Middought v. Railroad, 51 Mo. 520; Stone v. Insurance Co., 78 Mo. 655; State ex rel. v. Grimm, 239 Mo. loc. cit. 161, 143 S. W. 483; Gold Issue, etc., Co. v. Insurance Co., 267 Mo. loc. cit. 575, 184 S. W.......
-
Blodgett v. Schaffer
...141; Hite v. Hunton, 20 Mo. 285; Parry v. Woodson, 33 Mo. 247; Weber v. Ebling, 2 Mo.App. 15; Krinske v. Railroad, 77 Mo. 362; Stone v. Ins. Co., 78 Mo. 655; State use v. Burtis, 34 Mo. 92; Payne v. Collier, 6 Mo. 321; Hicks v. Ellis, 65 Mo. 176; Hanly v. Dews, 1 Mo. 15; Gibson v. Chouteau,......