Williams v. Mut. Reserve Fund Life Ass'n

• Decision Date: 03 October 1907
• Citation: 145 N.C. 128,58 S.E. 802
• Parties: WILLIAMS. v. MUTUAL RESERVE FUND LIFE ASS'N.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

58 S.E. 802

(145 N.C. 128)

WILLIAMS.

v.MUTUAL RESERVE FUND LIFE ASS'N.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 3, 1907.

1. Insurance—Contracts—What Law Governs.

A policy of a New York corporation on the life of a citizen of North Carolina, which was signed in 1884 in New York, and which stipulates that the place of the contract is New York, is a New York contract, prior to Act 1893, p. 302, c. 2999, § 8 (Revisal 1905, § 4806), providing that contracts of insurance taken within the state shall be subject to the laws thereof.

2. Same—Foreign Corporations — Regulations.

Neither a resident of Virginia who is an assignee of a policy issued by a New York corporation to a citizen of North Carolina, which stipulates that it is a New York contract, nor his cause of action thereon, is within Revisal 1905, § 4747, providing that the appointment by a foreign insurance corporation of the insurance commissioner as attorney shall be irrevocable as long as any liability of the corporation remains outstanding in the state, notwithstanding the right secured to every citizen of any of the states to sue in the courts of another state.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 28, Insurance, § 1573.]

3. Corporations — Foreign Corporations — Carrying on Business Within State.

The Legislature has the power to prescribe the terms on which foreign corporations may come into the state, and may pass statutes for the protection of its own citizens doing business with them, as against the objection that such statutes discriminate against nonresidents.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 12, Corporations, §§ 2505-2527.]

Appeal from Superior Court, Martin County; Long, Judge.

Action by H. G. Williams, administrator, against the Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed, with directions to dismiss.

On April 19, 1884, defendant, a New York corporation, issued to A. W. Satterthwaite, of Yatesville, Beaufort county, in this state, a policy of insurance upon his life for $6,000, payable to insured or his legal representatives. The policy contained the usual stipulations in regard to payment of assessments. There is nothing in the policy to indicate at what place the application was made, or where the policy was delivered, other than the statement of insured's residence. The policy was signed in New York. The tenth clause is as follows: "The entire contract contained in this certificate and said application, taken together, shall be governed by, subject to, and construed only according to the constitution, by-laws, and regulation of said association and the laws of the state of New York, the place of this contract being expressly agreed to be the home office of said association in the city of New York." On November 27, 1895, the said A. W. Satterthwaite, having paid the assessments to that date, assigned the policy to the plaintiff, a citizen and resident of the state of Virginia, who thereafter paid such assessments as were made on said policy until June 1, 1901, when the defendant company declared the contract of insurance forfeited on account of plaintiff's refusal to pay increased assessments demanded of him. The assessments paid by plaintiff amount to some $4,000. Plaintiff, on the 7th day of June, 1906, instituted this action in the superior court of Martin county for the purpose of recovering the assessments paid by him, remitting and forgiving all sums in excess of $1,999.99, etc. Summons was served on James R. Young, Esq., Commissioner of Insurance for the state of North Carolina. Defendant, by its counsel, at June term, 1906, of said court, made a special appearance, and lodged a motion to set aside and vacate the service of summons on the Commissioner of Insurance. The court, upon this motion, found the following facts: On May 19, 1899, defendant company revoked the power of attorney theretofore made to the Commissioner of Insurance. At the date of the policy, at the date of the assignment, and at all times since the plaintiff was and is now a citizen and resident of the state of Virginia. Defendant is a corporation, chartered, organized, and having its principal place of business in New York City. The court denied the motion, and defendant duly excepted. Defendant, thereupon, demurred to the complaint. Demurrer was overruled. Defendant excepted and appealed.

J. W. Hinsdale and Gilliam & Gilliam, for appellant.

R. O. Everett, for appellee.

CONNOR, J. (after stating the facts as above). The record presents a number of interesting questions, some of which are difficult of solution. In the view which we take of the appeal, it is unnecessary to discuss or decide them. The appeal must be disposed of upon the defendant's exception to the refusal of his honor, Judge Ward, to set aside the service of summons on the Insurance Commissioner and dismiss the action. It will be noted that,...