Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-05-17
COURT DECISIONS.
Notes of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are of Interest to
Our People.
DIGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN,
Exclusively for virginian- Pllot.)

Exclusively for virginian- Pllot)
TAYLOR ". NUT. r. f. LIFE ASSO.
Supreme Court of Appeals OF Virginia,
April 6. 1899.
COURTS WILL NOT INTERFERE
WITH THE MANAGEMENT, OF
THE AFFAIRS OF A FOREIGN
CORPORATION, THOUGH DOING
BUSINESS IN VIRGINIA.
a POLICYHOLDER IN a MUTUAL
ASSESSMENT INSURANCE ASSO-
CITATION HAVING NO CAPITAL
STOCK, Is a MEMBER OF THE
CORPORATION. WITH THE
RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF A
STOCKHOLDER
IN SUCH CASE ILLEGAL ASSESS
MENTS AND OTHER UNLAWFUL
ACTIONS OF THE OFFICERS AND
AGENTS ARE WRONGS TO HIM
AS a MEMBER, OF WHICH THE
COURT HAS NOT JURISDICTION
If THE CORPORATION IS a FOR
EiGN ONE.
y COURT WITHOUT JURISDICTION
ON THE MERITS OF THE CON
TROVERSY
This Was bill in equity, filed by
Taylor against the defendant, which
was IL foreign insurance company, or
San%ed on the assessment plan in the
State of New York. but doing business
IN Virginia. with an agent in Rich
mond. on whom process could be
served. The bill set forth Il number of
facts alleging that the company had
Illegally increased assessments, adopt
ed an unlawful plan of insurance, mis-
appropriated funds and committed 9TH
CT wrongs. There WAS demurrer to
the bill which the lower court sustained
ana the plaintiff appealed. The Court
says:
The principal objection urged to the
Dill is that the case made, and the re-
Ile1 sought, would require the court To
interfere with the internal manages
mcnt of foreign corporation, a sub
Ject matter over which the court has
no Jurisdiction. 1t seems TO he well
settled ;hat courts will not interfere
with the management of the internal
aiIairs of foreign corporation. Such
Questions are TO be settled by the tri-
punalS OF the State which created the
corporation. The reasons for such a
rule are apparent, courts other than
those OF the state creating it, and in
which 1t has its habitat. have no VISA
tor!al powers over such corporation:
nave no authority to remove its Of
hccis. or To punish them for miscon-
duct committed in the State which
created II. nor 10 enforce Il forfeiture
OF its charter. Neither have they pow
er To compel obedience to their or
ders nor 10 enforce their DEGREES There
is nothing in the Act of Assembly an
..,s 4.
general rule upon the subject and gives
10 the courts of this State the RICH,
To control or interfere with the inter-
Iil alIalrS OF Il foreign corpora ton do
ing businert; here. The next question
10 he considered is, whether or not the
acts complained of are so distinctiveiv
acts pertaining 10 the management OF
we ihterhal anairs OF the association
mat they can only be inquired into
by the courts of the State creating it.
CUT rrursrtiiu1 rs IN rs
scS~incnt company. 1t has no capitaI
stock. and he who takes out n policy of
Insurance in IL becomes a member ar
the body corporate, clothed with the
rights ana subject to the liabilities of a
stockholder He is at once insurer and
insured. All these alleged acts of mis-
conduct affect the appellant in his "a
pacity as a member of the association.
Not only are the acts complained of
acts which relate to the internal man
aSement OF the association, but the re-
lief sought, if granted, would require
the courts of this state to control and
overhaul that management. If the
court We're of opinion that the ASSESS
ment was invalid. how could it restra,,
and control the association at its home
Office in the State of New York. where
the assessments were TO be paid? II
would have no power 10 enforce Its
restraining order If the association re
fused TO obey it. II is clear that an
Injunction ought not 20 be granted
which cannot be enforced.
We are of opinion that the subject
matter of this suit is not within Tho
jurisdiction of the courts of this state
ana that the remedy sought is beyond
their reach. The demurrer to the hill
was therefore properly sustained. The
case made and the relief sought. not
being within the jurisdiction of the
court. 1t has no power to construe the
contract. Whenever a court determines
tnat 1T has no jurisdiction of a case, IL
should express no opinion upon the
merits of the controversy. The only
course which court can rightfullv
pursue in such case is TO decline to
speak at all where it cannot speak by
the law. Affirmed.
CITY OF LEXINGTON V. LENNICK
EFT AIS.
Court Of Appeals of Kentucky.