Court Opinion

ID: 9307363
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-12-02 17:18:09.855819+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:13:58.363317
License: Public Domain

ACHKSON, Circuit Judge.
The act of April 22, 1874 (P. L. 1.08), was considered by the supreme court of Pennsylvania in Lasher v. Stimson, 145 Pa. St. 30, 35, 23 Atl. 552. After quoting the first and second sections of the act, the court said:
*598“Those terms are not onerous, or in conflict with any constitutional provision or rule of public policy. But they are clearly prohibitory, and they indelibly stamp as unlawful any business transaction within the state by a foreign corporation which has not complied with them. It is only by its observance of them that it can have a legal existence for business purposes within this jurisdiction^ or acquire contractual rights which our courts will recognize. Thorne v. Insurance Co., 80 Pa. St. 15.”
It will be observed that the court, in its construction of this act, adopts the principles of the case of Thorne v. Insurance Co., 80 Pa. St. 15, in which it was held that, where a foreign insurance company had not complied with the act under which alone it was authorized to transact business in Pennsylvania, there could be no recovery by the company upon a bond given by its agent, with sureties, conditioned for paying over moneys of the' company received by him. These authorities, to which may be added Johnson v. Hulings, 103 Pa. St. 498, seem to be decisive of the present case. I am altogether unable to find any valid ground of distinction between the case in hand and the cases above cited. Moreover, the Pennsylvania decisions are in harmony with the rule of law established by the decisions of the supreme court of the United States. Miller v. Ammon, 145 U. S. 421, 12 Sup. Ct. 884. The motion for a new trial is denied.