Case Name: The Farmers and Merchants Ins. Co. v. Harrah
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1874-05
Citations: 47 Ind. 236
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Farmers and Merchants Ins. Co. v. Harrah.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 47
Pages: 236–241

Head Matter:
The Farmers and Merchants Ins. Co. v. Harrah.
Foreign Insurance Company.—Statutory Restrictions.—Before an insurance company incorporated by another state can lawfully transact business in this State, it must conform to the requirements of our laws, and must procure a certificate of authority from the Auditor of State.
■Same.— Construction of Statutes.—Repeal by Implication.—The act approved March 9th, 1855, repealed by implication, so far as foreign insurance companies were concerned, the act of June 17th, 1852,1 G. & H. 272. The two acts were repugnant. They could not both stand and be enforced. In such case, the last expressed will of the legislature must prevail.
Same.—The act approved December 21st, 1865, is a substitute for the act of March 9th, 1855.
Same.—Constitutional Law.—This State has the constitutional right to prescribe the terms on which corporations organized in other states of the Union may transact business in this State.
Same.—While corporations are recognized as citizens, for some purposes, of the state of their creation, a corporation is not a citizen within the meaning of that clause of the Constitution of the United States, which declares that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states; and a corporation created by a state can exercise pone of the functions or privileges conferred by its charter in any other state, except by the consent and comity of the latter.
From the Greene Circuit Court.
R. R. Taylor\ A. C. Cavins, E. H. C. Cavins, and IT. Burns, for appellant.
E. E. Rose, for appellee.

Opinion:
Buskiric, J.
This was an action by the appellant, a foreign insurance company, against the appellee, upon a premium note. There was issue, trial by the court, and a finding for appellee, motion for a new trial overruled, and judgment on the finding. The only error assigned is overruling the motion for a new trial.
The appellant offered in evidence a resolution, adopted by the appellant as required by the second section of "an act respecting foreign corporations and their agents in this State," to which the appellee objected, upo.n the ground that it was. not certified in the manner required by the law. It was certified under the seal of the corporation. It is contended that it should have been a sworn copy, as required by section 284 of the code, 2 G. & H. 184. We do not find it necessary to decide the question discussed. The resolution or order was passed and certified on the 18th day of November, 1863. The order was passed and certified, as is shown by the order, in pursuance of the second section of the act approved June 17th, 1852, 1 G. & H. 272. Such actwasnot in force at that time. The second section of that act required, as a condition precedent to the right to take risks or transact any business, that a duly certified copy of an order, or resolution, authorizing any agent transacting business in this State to acknowledge service of process, in any action against such company, to be filed with the clerk of the circuit court of any county in which such company proposed to take risks or transact business.
The act approved March 2d, 1855, repealed, by implica tion, the act of June 17th, 1852, so far as foreign insurance companies are concerned. By the later act, it is provided, "that it shall not be lawful for any agent or agents of any insurance company, incorporated by any other state than the State of Indiana, directly or indirectly to take risks or transact any business of insurance in this State, without first producing a certificate of authority from the Auditor of State." The two acts are repugnant. They can not both stand, and be enforced. In such case, the last expressed will of the legislature is to prevail.
The act approved December 21st, 1865, is a substitute for the act approved March 2d, 1855. Hoffman v. Banks, 41 Ind. 1.
The certificate offered in evidence did not conform to the requirements of the act of 1855. The ruling of the court was right.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.