The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-10-08
POINT IN INSURANCE LAW
Which the Court of Appeals Didn't
Have to Pass Upon.

The United States circuit court of
appeals might have decided a point Of
much interest to every insurance man
in the country in a decision handed
down yesterday, but it didn't. 1t was
not the courts fault, however, but that
of the interested insurance company
A transcript of judgment in the bill
of particulars was not in the records of
the case, so the court passed.
1t was the case, originally, of Minnie
R. Sparks versus the National Masonic
Accident Association of Des Moines,
10. 1t appears that the plaintiff was a
resident of Missouri and had claim
for $3.50 against the Iowa company
The plaintiff brought a suit in the
county court of Jackson county, Mo.
to recover judgment which she OBJ
tanned, the insurance people putting
in no appearance or no defense. The
company had no property in Missouri,
and the action was taken to the United
States circuit court of Southern Iowa
to secure the judgment. Here the
company made a defense on the ground
that it's company had not been author
lied to do business in the state of Mis-
souri,, and that no service in the case
had been secured or made on any agent
or representative of the company. But
the court again decided against the
the circuit court of appeals, and again
the insurance company has been beat
en-.
In the appeal the insurance company
set forth numerous grounds of error
It denied that judgment had ever been
obtained against it in the state of Mis-
souri, or that the defendant had ever
appeared in any suit in that case. It
was an Iowa institution and it was set
IA off in,
souri,, nor was there anybody there
upon whom service could be made
The company had never asked admis-
sion to Missouri, nor had any person
or agent upon whom service could be
made been there, nor did it ever enter
voluntary appearance. And finally. it
alleged the judgment had been OBJ
tanned through fraud. None of the al
legations of error were regarded SUI
ficient by the court of appeals to war
rant a reversal OF the lower court. On
the one particular point on which the
whole question seemed to hinge, and
that of particular interest to insur-
ance people generally, the court of APP
peals, in its decision. said:
1t is also insisted that the circuit court
erred in admitting in evidence what pur-
ported to be transcript of the judgment
rendered by the circuit court of Missouri
upon which this suit was brought for the
reason CHs1L IlIS Transcript Oh the record OF
that Judgment was not properly certified
that it disclosed the fact that the Judgment
was rendered without service of summons
upon the association; that the only process
which was attempted to be issued or served
in that case was issued against and served
upon the superintendent of the insurance de-
partment of Missouri; that the association
had never appointed the superintendent of
the insurance department of Missouri its
agent, upon whom service of process might
be made. and therefore the judgment en-
tered in the circuit court Of Missouri was
invalid. We have examined the record care
fully but have been unable to find the tran
script of this judgment in the bill of excep-
tons. To enable this court to review the ac-
ton of the circuit court upon the admission
or exclusion CT evidence. the evidence to
which the exception is directed must be in
corporated in the bill of exceptions. other
wise the court has no meansof forming a
Judgment in regard to the propriety of the
alleged erroneous ruling. When similar
question was before the court, Judge San
born, speaking for the court, Judge San
q court for the correction of the errors of the
court below, but those who assal its rulings
must present the evidence upon which it
acted. In the absence of that evidence the
presumption is that the court below was
right