Case Name: William Guernsey vs. American Insurance Company
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1868-01
Citations: 13 Minn. 278
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Guernsey vs. American Insurance Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 278–291

Head Matter:
William Guernsey vs. American Insurance Company.
The act relating to the service of mesne process upon foreign corporations, found upon page 494, Geni. Stat, and approved February 38,1866, controls Sections 48 and 66, Gh. 66, Gen. Stat.,' and the delivery of a copy of a summons to the general or managing agent of a foreign corporation, as therein provided, is a sufficient service upon the corporation, and subjects it to the jurisdiction of the Court in which the summons is issued.
This action was commenced in tbe Court of Common Pleas for the County of Ramsey, and comes to this Court by an appeal taken by the plaintiff, from an order granting a motion made to set aside the service of the summons. The case is fully stated in the opinion of the Court.
Lampreys for Appellant.
I. —In a motion the moving party is confined to the grounds of motion stated by him, and no other can be considered. Buies of Court, 9; 6 Row. Pr., 296 ; 1 Code, 4-9.
II. ' — The return shows • that the defendant at the time of the service of the summons had property within the State of Minnesota; that the cause of action arose within the State, and that the person on whom the service was made was then and there the general managing agent, and a secretary of said company.
Now our statute, page 456, Sec. 48, provides that the summons in an action against a foreign corporation can be served by delivering a copy thereof to the secretary, or managing agent thereof, whenever “it has property in this State, or the cause of action arose therein.”
And the statute, page 494, Secs. 1 and 2, provides that “ such service shall be of the same force, effect and validity, as like service upon domestic corporations.”
This act shall have full force and effect notwithstanding any provisions of the general statutes, or other law of the State, inconsistent herewith, to take effect from its passage, and approved February 28, 1866.
Now can there be any question what force and effect such a service upon a domestic corporation would have, especially when it appears from the act itself that it was the intention of the Legislature to repeal thereby all statutes or laws inconsistent therewith ?
The act of February 28, 1866, was passed expressly to give the Courts jurisdiction of such a case as this. 23 How. Pr., 180 ; 18 Ib., 412 ; 13 Abb., 425 ; 3 Duer, 648.
III. — A foreign corporation, by its general agent or officers, can make contracts and hold property in this State; sue in our Courts, and have its rights determined in the same manner as a “ domestic corporation; ” and we insist that there can be no good reason why it should not be sued in the same manner. Stats., page 542, See. 2.
IT. — -The order appealed from is erroneous, and should be reversed.
E. C. Palmer for Respondent.
I. — The first point made by the appellant is not tenable. Neither the rule nor the'cases cited sustain the position.
But were it otherwise, the “ grounds ” stated in the motion are broad enough to cover all the questions intended to be raised.
II. —-The return is evidence of nothing except the time, place and manner of service. All else is surplusage and impertinent matter, which must be disregarded. Sec. 53, Chap. 66, Gen. Stat.; 3 R. I., 84; 1 Bosworth, 406; 33 Maine, 29 ; Greenleaf Ev., 5th Ed., Vol. 1, Sec. 498, and cases cited.
III. —The service is void, and the Court acquired no jurisdiction. thereby, because not made upon an agent or officer specially authorized to receive or accept it. Gen. Stat., Chap. 34, Secs. 117, 125.
IY. — The said service was not made upon such an officer or agent, as the law requires.' The mere fact that the person served is an agent of a foreign corporation, within the State creating such corporation, is not enough; he must be such agent, act as such, and reside within the jurisdiction in which the action is brought, before the law will regard him as the legal representative of the corporation. Gen. Stat., Chap. 66, Secs. 48, 49, 56, 192; Gen. Stat., page 494, Secs. 1, 2; Gen. Stat., Chap. 34, Sec. 125 ; New York Statutes, Edmonds’ Ed., Vol. 3, page 685.
Y. — The said service is not a service upon the defendant. No mode of service is effectual to give our Courts jurisdiction of a foreign corporation, unless such corporation is shown to have an agency established in the State for the transaction of some portion of its business, or have property therein upon which the plaintiff has acquired a lien by attachment or garnishment. And if the act of February 28, 1866, or any other law of the State, was1 intended to go beyond this, and authorize our Courts to render judgment in personam, in a caselilce the present, it is, so far, invalid and nugatory. Gen. Stat., Chap. 66, Sec. 56; 14 Conn., 301; 4 How. Prac. Rep., 275 ; 5 How. Prac. Rep., 183 ; 13 Curtis, U. S., 277; 13 Now. Prac. Rep., 516; 10 Minn., 386; 9 Minn., 303.
VI. —A foreign corporation can only be brought into Court by virtue of some statutory provision, (in cases where jurisdiction can be acquired for any purpose,) and such provision cannot be extended by construction.
The fact that a foreign corporation is authorized to.sue in this State by express provision of law, “ is no good reason,” or any reason at all, why it should be sued in the same manner. 10 Mvnn., 386, and cases cited.
VII. —The order appealed from is correct, and should stand.

Opinion:
Berry,. J.
By the Qourt This action was brought in the Common Pleas, upon a policy of insurance issued by the defendant' to the plaintiff. The summons was served in the manner indicated in the following affidavit:
" Morris Lamprey came before me personally, and being sworn says, that in said county on the seventh day of November, A. D. 1861, he served the within summons upon the American Insurance Company, which is well known to this deponent to be the same American Insurance. Company as the within named defendant, in the within entitled cause, and has property within said State, and the cause of action therein arose in said State, by then and there giving in hand to, and leaving with R. B. Currier, who is well known to this deponent to be the same person as, and thegeneral agent and general managing agent, and one of the officers, and a secretary of said American Insurance Company, a true copy thereof, then and there ; and further saith not.
Morris Lamprey."
The defendant appearing specially for that purpose moved to set aside the service — (1). Because the said R. B. Currier was not authorized to receive the same. (2). Because the said service is not a service upon the said defendant. The plaintiff appealed from an order granting the motion. Upon the hearing of the motion below, the defendant read the following affidavit:
" R. B. Currier, being duly sworn, says, that he is the same person on whom the summons in the above entitled action was served on the 7th day of November, A. JD. 1867, as stated in the affidavit of service of Morris Lamprey, indorsed on the original summons herein; that this deponent is the general agent of said defendant, and resides at Freeport, in the State of Illinois ; that said defendant is a foreign corporation, created by and under the. laws of said Illinois, and having its principal place of business at said Freeport; that said corporation, defendant, in consequence of the oppressive and' hostile character of the legislation of the State of Minnesota, in the year 1866, relative to foreign insurance companies, ceased to do business in the State of Minnesota, withdrew its agents, and made no attempt to comply with the requirements of said •laws, of said State of Minnesota, since January 1st, 1867; that prior to the year 1867 said company had been doing a large amount of insurance business in Minnesota, and at said last named date had outstanding and unsettled a large number of promissory notes taken for premiums which were due, and to become due — many of which are now due and unpaid; that since said January, A. D. 1867, said defendant has had no agent or officer in said Minnesota, authorized to accept service of process in legal proceedings, or any agent or agents whatever on whom service could be made in such cases ; that this deponent arrived in this State of Minnesota about the middle of October, A. D. 1867, with the intention of remaining for a short time only; that he expects and intends to leave this State in a day or two, and return to his place of residence in Freeport aforesaid ; that he is a non-resident of the State of Minnesota, and was only temporarily within the limits of said State, at the date qf the service of said summons as afore said; tliat he has no authority to receive or accept service of process in legal proceedings for, or on behalf of said company, and that said corporation has no officer or agent within this State, on whom such service can properly be made.
K. B. Currier."
It appears from this affidavit, as well as from the complaint and affidavit of Lamprey, that the defendant is a foreign corporation, and that Currier is a general agent of the same; and these two facts are, we think, conclusive in favor of the sufficiency of the service to give jurisdiction of the defendant. The act relating to the service of mesne process upon foreign corporations, found on page 494, G. 8., approved February 28, 1866, is in these words :
" Section 1. That the summons, in any civil action or proceeding wherein a foreign corporation is defendant, may be served by delivering a copy thereof to the president, secretary, or any managing or general agent of said foreign corporation, and such service shall be of the same force, effect and validity as like service upon domestic corporations.
" Section 2. This act shall have full force and effect, notwithstanding any provisions of the general statutes, or other law of the State inconsistént herewith, and shall be published with and as a part of the general statutes." We think that the meaning of this act is, that the delivery of a copy of the summons to the general or managing agent of a foreign corporation is a sufficient service, and subjects such corporation to the jurisdiction of the Court, as it would a domestic corporation. Sec. 4:8,page 456, G. S., provides .as follows»,:
" Section 48. The summons shall be served by delivering a copy thereof as follows: First — If the action is against a corporation, to the president or other head of the corporation, secretary, cashier, 'treasurer, a director or managing agent thereof; but such service can be made in respect to a foreign corporation only when it has property within this State, or the cause of action arose' therein." Sec. 56, p. 457, Gr.,8.) provides as follows:
'•Section 56. No corporation is subject to the jurisdiction of a Court of this State unless it appears in the Court, or has been created by or under the laws of this State, or has an agency established therein for the transaction of some portion of its business, or has property therein upon which the plain-. tiff has acquired a lien by attachment or garnishment, and in the last case only to the extent of such property at the time the jurisdiction attached."
Section 49 we think not important to be considered in this case. It is manifest that the act of February 28th permits service to be made upon a foreign corporation, and jurisdiction over such foreign corporation to be acquired by virtue of •such service in a manner and in cases in which these things were not only not permitted, but were virtually prohibited to be done under Sections 48 and 56 before cited. In so far as the act of February 28th has this effect, it is inconsistent with Sections 48 and 56 ; and by its own terms it is to " have full force and effect notwithstanding." The act of February 28th was passed under somewhat peculiar circumstances. The legislature at the session at which it was passed was engaged in a revision of the general laws of the State. The whole body of statutory law, now denominated the " General Statutes", was under consideration, and was adopted at that session. The Legislature in section 2 of the act of Feb. 28 declare that " this act shall have full force and effect, notwithstanding any provisions of the general statutes, or other law of the State inconsistent herewith, and shall be published with, and as a part of the general statutes."
By the phrase "general statutes " we understand that the' Legislature pointed to the body of law now designated in aqcord anee with its own provisions as the " General Statutes." Sec. 1, Chap. 121,p. 676, Gen. Stai. The "General Statutes", as such, were not to go into effect until after July 31, 1866, and this fact gives significance to the expression " other law of the State" in Sec. 2, as well as to Sec. 3, which provides that the act of Feb. 28 " shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage." That is to say the words " other law of the State " may be treated as referring to private laws, and to the public and general law in force at the time when the act of Feb: 28 was passed, and which it was designed to reach and affect by the act of Feb. 28, before the time when the " General Statutes", as such, would take effect. The act of Feb. 28, as its date shows, was enacted near the close of the session. The " General Statutes", so called, were .to some extent incomplete and unfinished. They had not been collected in a printed volume. The difficulty of attempting to examine the many acts which were to compose the "General Statutes", for the purpose of making such changes as would be necessary to engraft thereon provisions like those of the act of Feb. 28, by amendments, will be apparent. Some of these acts had been approved by the Governor ; others were in various stages of the process of legislation. A' reference to the Journals of the Senate and House for 1866 shows, that chap. 66, Gen. Stat., had passed both branches of the Legislature on the 21st of February ; that the bill which became the act of Feb. 28 was subsequently introduced, and passed the Legislature Feb. 27. Senate Journal, 171,173, 200, 220; House Journal, 191, 272. These facts, as well as the sweeping phraseology of the act of Feb. 28, leave very little room for doubt that it was the intention of the Legislature to make that act controlling, and whatever provisions of the General Statutes are irreconcilable with its terms, must give way. See also Sec. 9, chap. 121, G.S. We think that these conclusions are not affected by the fact, that while this act was approved by the Governor Feb. 28, Chap. 66, Gen. Stai., was approved March 1. We are unable to see how such action of the Executive, in approving, could affect the intent of the Legislature, or the meaning of its acts.
We perceive'no reason why it was not competent for the Legislature to pass the act of-Feb. 28 with the meaning which we attach to it. See Cumberland Coal Co. vs. Hoffman Coal Co., 30 Barb. (S. C.), 165. If for want of property, in this State upon which to levy an execution, a barren judgment should in any case be recovered upon such service as may be made under this act, this is no more than sometimes happens when personal service is made in an action against a natural person, and it is for the plaintiff, in both cases, to determine for himself whether or not it will be wise to take the risk of finding property.
On the whole, then, we see no reason why the service made was not sufficient, and the order appealed from is accordingly reversed.