The advocate and Topeka tribune., 1893-04-26
TWO IMPORTANT QUESTIONS.
Insurance Companies Should Take Chances
in Kansas Courts Along With Common
Citizens Judgments Should be Taxed.
STATE OF KANSAS.
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT.
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL.

or not insurance companies organized
under the laws Of other states and doing
business in this state, can, when sued in
the courts Of this state, remove such &C
tions into the federal court, and whether
or not the superintendent OF insurance
has jurisdiction to compel such COM
panies to submit to the jurisdiction Of
the courts of this state in litigsting
their losses and revoke their authority
to do business in this state, for remov-
ing or attempting to remove actions
commenced against them in the state
courts TO the federal courts, when it gp-
pears to the satisfaction Of the superin-
tendent Of insurance that such removal,
or attempted removal, is for Vexation
and delay and to work an injustice upon
the policy-holder, as requested in the
petition of Wesley Best, fled with you
and submitted with your letter to this
office, will say: Section 1854 Of the gen.
ersl statutes Of 1889, provides that "every
such person on application for admission
and authority to transact business in
this state, and as condition precedent to
obtaining any such authority, shall file
in the insurance department it's written
consent irrsvocabls that actions may be
commenced against such company in the
proper court Of any county in this state
in which the cause Of action shall arise,
or in which the plaintiff may reside, by
the service Of process upon the superin-
tendent of insurance Of this state, and
stipulsting and agreeing that such SER
vice shall be taken and held in all courts
to be as valid and binding as il due SER
vice had been made upon the president
or chief officer Of such corporation" 1t
further provides that the summons shall
be directed to the superintendent Of in
sursnce and what proceedings shall be
had in connection Herewith.
Section 1888 Of the general statutes of
1889 contains similar provision and re-
quires a record to be kept Of all judg-
ments, etc., rendered against such insur-
Rnce companies. It will be seen that the
filing of power Of attorney or consent,
that service of process issued from state
courts is a condition precedent to the
company receiving authority to transact
business in this state. Such companies
have no absolute right to transact bust
ness in this state and can only do 30 by
the permission Of the state upon such
terms and conditions as the legislature
may see fit to impose.
In the case of. Paul vs.. Virginia, 8 Wal
lace, 1853, Mr.. Justice Field discussing
this question In delivering an opinion of
the court says: "HsVing no absolute
right of recognition in the other states
but depending for such recognition
and the enforcement Of its contracts
upon their assent, it follows as q
matter Of course, that such assent
may be granted upon such terms
and conditions as those states may think
proper to impose. They may exclude the
foreign corporations entirely; they may
restrict its business to particular locali-
ties, or they may exact such security for
the performance Of its contracts with
their citizens as in their judgment may
best promote public interest. The whole
matter rests in their discretion"
Our own court in the case of Phoenix