The Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cushman
| Decision Date | 07 April 1906 |
| Citation | 106 N.W. 934,130 Iowa 378 |
| Parties | THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA v. WILL CUSHMAN and M. J. CUSHMAN, Appellants |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pottawattamie District Court.-- HON. O. D. WHEELER Judge.
ACTION in equity to recover judgment on a note and for foreclosure of a mortgage securing the same. The case was tried on an agreed statement of facts and a decree rendered for plaintiff from which defendants appeal.-- Affirmed.
Affirmed.
Saunders & Stuart, for appellants.
Jacob Sims, for appellee.
The question very briefly presented in this case, without citation of authorities on either side, is whether plaintiff an insurance company, organized in another state not having a permit such as is required under Code, section 1637, to authorize it to transact business in Iowa, can maintain an action and recover in an Iowa court on a bond and mortgage executed to the company. The only facts appearing from the stipulation bearing on the nature of the business which plaintiff was transacting in Iowa are that the defendants made and delivered to the plaintiff their note for $ 500 and their mortgage deed securing the same, and that defendants have failed to pay the principal and interest on said note. It is clear, therefore, that the business which plaintiff was transacting in Iowa, so far as this record shows, was that of acquiring or receiving from defendants a note and mortgage. The last sentence of the section of the Code above referred to is as follows: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any foreign corporation from buying, selling, and otherwise dealing in notes, bonds, mortgages and other securities." We think this provision covers the transaction of receiving and accepting a note and mortgage executed to the foreign corporation for a valid consideration, when such transaction is independent of and not connected with any form of business which the company is prohibited from transacting without a permit. The statutory language was clearly intended to cover the ordinary transaction of loaning money on mortgage securities, and there is nothing in the stipulation of facts to indicate that the note and mortgage in this case were received for any other consideration than that of money loaned or advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant.
But however this may be, we have held that the mortgagor, who has received and...
To continue reading
Request your trial