Manchester Democrat. [volume] (Manchester, Iowa) 1875-1930, 1899-09-13

ct out. All the authorities c,rd have I
)een carefully considered and all have
,een referred to that were acce asibie.
The following will sufficiently indicate
he views OF the court: {
Seamans v. Zimmerman, 81 Iowa 1863
This case holds, az Practically that u g
in controversy in the case ut
oar are Illinois contracts. There is lit
lie to distinguish the facts of the Two
cases. In the case at bar the applica-
ion was taken by local agent aid
to the general Office in Chi
,ago, where it was acted on. The local
agent had no authority to bind the
company in any way, hence the taking
Of the application did not affect the
character of the contract that was sub
entered into. In other re-
spects the Zimmerman case is substan
TALLY parallel to the case at bar. The
Supreme Court seems to treat the Zim-
application and policy as
contract. az The thinner
man case depends as to its controlling
force upon the fact that the statute
Section 1l44) absolutely forbade the
taking of risks in this state, either d.
rectly or indirectly, by any reinsurance
company unless possessed of the requi
site capital. The demurrer admitted
that the company had not the capital
required. The court finds no parallel
in the facts or the law of the case at bar
for the reason that there is no prohibit
ton in the statute here relied on and
because the Zimmerman case was an
action by the receiver of the insurance
company to enforce collection of assess
ments. In such case the plaintiff could
not avail himself of the rules of comfy
that would be recognized had the con-
tract not directly contravened the laws
of this state; and for the further very
good reason that had the action been
brought by Zimmerman on account of
had been made on the company in this
state, a recovery could not have been
had notwithstanding the fact that the
company "operated in this state con-
;rary to law. The court does not need
to call attention to recent authorities in
support of these views. The case of
Parker v. Lamb, 90 Iowa 265, is decisive
only of the same question that was de
cided in the Zimmerman case Ante.
Davis v Bronson. Iowa 40. This
case concerned the recovery of the value
Of certain liquors shipped into this state
to citizen thereof under contract OF
purchase made In Illinois. The opinion
of the court is we'll considered, but be-
fore it can be said to have any control
ling weight as precedent in this case,
the statute upon which it is wholly
based must be considered. The statute
referred to was absolutely prohibitive in
its nature. 1t may we'll be said that the
contracting parties of any subject mat
ter governed by statute contract in ref
erence to it. At least if they do not,
they can not avail themselves of their
ignorance. The law under contempla-
ton BY the court was law to suppress
intemperance in this state. 1t was un-
doubtedly of police nature. While the
opinion is one of the best, yet many of
the authorities cited have no applica-
tion to the facts of the case at bar, nor
to the particular question decided. The
last pages of the printed opinion (432)
strikes at the essence of the doctrine of
the case. and the court has only to call
attention thereto to show the weight of
the decision.
u 1t is said by learned counsel for plain.
tiff that there ought to be recovery for
plaintiff because of the statute Chapter
IS, Twenty First General Assembly
Much has been said in argument by the
very learned counsel of both parties and
the court has endeavored to carefully
investigate the contentious of both. The
contract may be an Illinois contract and
may contravene in some respects the
declared principles of our laws, yet 1t
does not follow that the defendant may
not be entitled to decree. What must
be determined is, what prohibitive stat
ute, what statute concerning police reg
ulati0n, has been contrayened by the
contracts in controversy? BY Chapter
65 of Laws of the Twenty-lirst General
Assembly, this state undertook to etfec.
tually control all that it could control in
respect to the organization and opera,
certainly could not control the organi.
, but had the power to control the cop.
Grafton in this state of foreign compa.
MES. The chapter referred to certainly
distinguished between domestic and for.
eign companies. If not, why contine
the first twelve sections to domestic
companies and then take up the ques.
ton of state control of foreign compa
MES? The Act in respect to foreign
companies provides upon what terms
, they shall be licensed. There is no re-
. quirement as to whom the avails of thu
certificate or policy shall be paid 1t is
, q question of license, and that only
When license Is issued there can be nc
: doubt that the company acting under it
is operating in this state pursuant to
what? Its charter and bylaws recog.
nized by the laws of the state where
created and approved by the designated
! officer In this state, or the laws of tie
state where the contract is attempted tt
J be enforced under the rule as to dOmes
tic corporations?
. To the mind of the court the insu
rance company stands in the position Of
absolute liability, not because it ha.
} violated the law of the state, but because
having violated no prohibitive law, il
must be liable to some one, and neces
, sarily, to the party with whom it con
tracted. Any other theory would in
this case indirectly enable the contest.
ant of the contract to defy the constitu
J tional rights of the defendant.
Miller Brewing Co. v. Council Bluffs
Insurance Company, 95 Iowa, 81. This
action turned on the question of service
and jurisdiction. The defendant haC
no right to transact business in Wiscon
sin, but did issue policy through al
agent having authority to do 80. Tit
company was held liable. There il
nothing in the case except q question o.
service and necessarily one of jurisdic
ton.
Spencer v. Myers, "a L. r. A. It's, IN
W has been cited ny counsel, in sup
port of the contention that Chapter s;
Laws Twenty-frst General Assembl,
prohibited the naming of Mrs. Johnston
as beneficiary. The New York Statut,
referred to removed the disability of {
wife to assign policy of insurance OF
the life of her husband, and the cour
, rightly held that the intent of the legis
: lature was to make insurance obliga
!, tions of that character held by womel
residing in New York, wherever created
assignable. The language of the cour
in holding that the act covered policies
, issued by foreign insurance companies
has no further weight than the scope O
/, the inquiry warranted.
Croker v. Hogin, lob Iowa, 243. Ii
, this case the insurer was an Iowa corpo
, ration, organized under the laws of tn,