Daily globe., 1879-03-18
THE ST PAUL GLOBE MORNING. ls 1879

lS5ss -
llNd, MAKCd liz. 1878.
= :--------- ----..-.-------..-
.
IIIEE INSIIRA NGE
i--s. - = 49,
cort.a+,n. +. poI,.. = -
s . : oAoy = eno A4ate Cnsries
sohener-Ihe Grounds on which the Com
test Is Made-The Court Decides Against
tho romranv
=,
S"pTo"eo OOsTs' s' ApTst Term, 1873.
MAJORITY OPINION.
Albert scheffer. Georpe r Finch aud nh.r,..
Nel.on :. ths e..ontor. .,,d - t-,..s.. a.i.' =.
-, 80 wv o~oo"'o1o snu - shus'eos OF inc
last Will and testament OF Charles Scheffer,
deceased, respondent, VS.. The National Life
Insurance company of the United States of
Amarca annoliant
m, = ~. ~ .'.
Wnen 1ms cause . mas canea Ior trlal IN the
coulu Delo1' DuS poiore any otner act was done
toward trlai the oelendant objected to the
court Proceeoing' on sne ground that 1T having
executed ana nled the proper papers
ZOE 1emoval OF 1ne cause to the
circulG courb OF tne United States,
tne Stste court had LOST jurisdictions.
1t the record IN the cause showed g. loss of
jurisdiction it was an error in the court to pro-
ceed further.
NO order for removal was necessary. st. An;
tnony fals wafer rover company vs.. King
y, Mrougnt iron bIldge company, ~ Minn., l86.
Inc ony grcuna upon Wnicn the writ OF re-
moval Is CLAIMED Is that the defendant denies
gress, wn1cn declares tnat Gne corporation shall
De eapao1e OF suing ana cDe1ng sued, pleading
anu pelns nPieaoea ~ IN 5ne oistrlct ana circuit
cou!ts OF 9ne on1!ea states, either IN law or in
e4ulty' III tne dlstrlct court OF Columbia, or
elsewhere. 1t is claimed that this provision, if
states exclusive ]urlsdlctlon In all actions to
which the corporation is q party, at least gives
to the corporation the privilege of electing
to have It's rights adjudged in the federal
instead OF the state courts. Ihe act GER
talnly gives to the corporation the character
necessary TO authorize ]urlsdlctlon in the feder-
al courts, so far as that jurisdiction may depend
on the character OF itigants. But we do not
think the act intended to authorize jurisdiction
IN the FEDERAL courts In all cases, without regard
to the nature OF or amount involved in the iti-
gation: Inc interpretation which would lead
10 tnat result would also authorize all actions
Dy OF agalnBt the corporation, TO be brought In
the district courts instead OF the circuit courts
OF the United States, and that the act intended
10 enlarge the or the district courts,
OF OF tne circuit courts 80 far as sHects the cor
Poratlon, CLASS OF actions OF wnicn those
courGs hao not lurlsolctlon Defore, ls hardly
possible.
Inc most that we can make OF the provision
Is that the corporation may sue or be sued in
the circuit or IN the dlstrlct court IN cases
where such court may have Jurisdiction OF the
sup]ecc matter; ana tnat inc rlgnt OF removal
1rom q otate 10 q 1eaeIal court oepends On tne
same conslderatlon. !hat Is, that no objection
can pe made 10 the right OF removal so tar as
re!ates TO tne cnaractef OF tne corporation, pro-
vioea ene nature OF the controversy Is such IS
to authorlze the removal.
Uur attention Is called TO the act OF March 8,
lo'o' 10 statutes at large, page 41o, regulating
removals. But that act does not include the
case OF q corporation m created by or under the
l laws Of tne on!teo eta5es. s9cn cases are con-
troneo py sectlon o4o' revised staGutes 10, IN
wnlcn sucn corporatlon IS required TO state IN
lts pesltlon 1or removal tnat II mas defense
arising 9naet OF Dy virtue OF tne conshtutlon
OF OF Gne on1tsa go States, OF any treaty OF law OF
s5 sne oA1teu o1ates. Ine Pet!tlon IN tnis case
naa no sucn s'a'e"en'' anu IL was enere1ore IN
buncAent'
The action was upon policy of life insur-
ance upon the lfe OF Charles schefieI. + con
:a,ned "a a TWO cohs'oera'lons unoer winch oe1ense
- F;ss+ Isu nh.+ - .so ..oe +ho ;,s,,-oa
hv h;s own hsnd' tbs no,;cv VIo eho,1d he 1o;2
nae -" msa. m"uu ono pOioy euoutu 70 1olu.
): oeoonuina' ~. Sne sIa!emenss az anu oeclala
elone nHue ~ Iue appucaSAon tol ene Poncy
was IN all respects true ana without any sup
Pression OF any Iact relating 20 tne neeltn'
naDiIs OF elrcumstanees 1s OF tne insured aHect'
~.
oPon tne oeIense unaer Inc nrst OF tnese
conoltio9s me evidence was Gomplete mat the
insuleo o1eo OF SUICIDE: ana tnere was also evl-
uence covering Peiiou ol several non'ns
Pllor 70 nls oeatn commenclng WIN very Sc
rlous injury suHereo by nlm' tendlng 10 prove
INSANITY:
we tatnH Ine5e was enough OIL cnls evioenSe
thn ;r -, vnu nt q. Sra
enoas .+ener royat;va ~ ~ ~ say ydt;e iI;e
- w oue LIZ
;+se1f nha aa,,rt ILL.,, oL.r.a5 th :s,... a ~.
lao oouAS uoio" onaiseu 1ue jury tnaU
e sne nGie Iac' OF !ne cGnssion .ht OF sa.clae Is
Nv, NV es.uGns " ~ .n"ay, ".nI
"Iy opu ~ oto 4ueSo1on wuoSnIl suicAue, us,
mnele Inele - noe o'nei esluohce showing % sne
menSal ~ conoltlon, Is evidence OF lnsanlty. we
tnlnK tnat Wnere tnere Is otner evidence tend
ing 70 show an insane condition, the fact OF
splclde may pe consldereo IN connectlon with
M Lnse e ~. .. L.1.- ~
lno Iuat 70 u oue IoulO o:to" upon 'ne 4ues-
Oton "uetuol uo"Vu w sulcu1' coMMlotou ny
reason OF insanity, AVOIDS eucn policy as that
In suit, is very terse!y and clearly expressed.
and as though tho court feared the Jury might
mlsapprehend, 1t Is several times repeated,
sn9wn owl language. . ,,e .
Ane cnalge was .naV II ns \oc4ener y Iea-
son was 10 iar Gyettnaomn taat mem ne naa not me ne
~" po"o. 80. - $3.50 ~ e pon tno ~ ~
"as "oouU W eomnil'' T. no ul9 no1 unuer,
, ., " 40 ~ "nu
aPPIeciate tne enect 0L Ine act, Dus was Drawn
TO II ny an uncontroliable impulse, caused by
insanity, then 1t Is not to bs considered as the
act or ms own hand Wlthln the meaning OF the
policy.
Ihls charge presented point That has been
repeatedly passed upon by the supreme court
of the United States, and the courts of last re-
sort in many of the States, which courts have
generally with the exception of that in Massa-
chusetts, given to such condition in life
insurance policy, the same construction given
to it by the constitution.