The Advocate and news., 1898-01-19

original PrOceeulnBS III N4uO WHTranlo'
JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF.
Opinion. Per Curiam.
On the 2lst Of August, 1897, the Attorney
General filed q petition In this court alleg-
ing that the defendant was an insurance
company Incorporated under the laws OF
the State Of New York; that 1t had been
transacting business as an insurance COM
pany in this State since the last OF March,
1897, without having procured from the Su-
perintendent of Insurance certificate or
authority SO to do, and was exercising IN
1t by the State Of New York without having
been authorized 50 to do by the laws OF this
State, or by permit Of the Superintendent
ant, on the Goth Of September, iiled q long
answer, stating many matters OF DEFENSE,
claiming that 1t has done everything which
1t was required to do by the laws OF the
State and that 1t was entitled to transact
it's business in the State Of Kansas, not
withstanding the refusal OF the Superin-
tendent of Insurance to Issue 1t q
certificate Of authority 80 to do:
on the 7th Of October, and, afterwards, the
case was advanced for hearing at the jan
uary session of the court. The defendant
now asks leave to withdraw It's answer ana
file an amended and supplemental answer,
alleging that 1t has ceased to transact in
surance business In Kansas; that 1t has
brought into court a sufficient sum OF
money to pay all costs in the case, and
asks that the action thereupon be dis
missed. Accompanying the answer Is an
affidavit of John -. Lord, stating that
the defendant has ceased soliciting and
procuring applications for insurance, and
withdrawn from the transaction OF insur-
ance business in this State, and that all
contracts with the agents OF the company
in Kansas ended on December 3lst, 1897.
Leave being granted to withdraw the an.
Aryk In1 nd 20 hn HnH
and supplemental answer, 1t Is contended
on behalf Of the defendant that the only
proper order the court can make is one or
dismissal No issue Of fact remains to be
tried, as the statements In the affidavit
of Lord are not controyerted by the Attor-
ney General. The only question for our
consideration is as to the proper order to
be made in the case. The defendants orig
to transact business in this State, having
been withdrawn, the ayerments OF the peti.
ton stand admitted with the additional
facts appearing from the supplemental an
action the defendant has ceased to carry
on its business and has paid the costs OF
this action.
1t will be observed as the pleadings now
stand, the defendant neither denies that 1t
was transacting business In violation OF
law at the time the action was commenced,
again aSa pTe Tesnme It's bsii business IN KANSAS KANSAS az
soon as this action is determined. It
merely says II Is not now violating the
law. In this state Of the pleadings, the
State is entitled to such Judgment as the
facts stated in the petition warrant The
amended and supplemental answer states
no defense The case of the state vs..
Graham, 13 Kan. 1876, while not strictly In
point seems applicable to the principle
here involved. In that case II was held,
that where q County Treasurer while in
office committed acts which worked for
feiture Of the office, and then abandoned
1t, that the action Of quo warranto In the
name Of the State might be maintained to
terminate his right to the office notwith-
standing the abandonment SO in this case
the action may be maintained to terminate
and put an end to the defendants claim
OF right to exercise It's corporate powers
in Kansas. The temporary withdrawal
from the State does not dispose Of the con-
troVersy. There 10 nothing on record show
ing that the contention Of the defendant
as exhibited In its original answer, that Il
was rightfully transacting business in
Kansas and may now lawfully do so, has
been abandoned. A judgment against q