Court Opinion

ID: 6894552
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-23 21:48:12.644211+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:05:56.260102
License: Public Domain

Thayer, J.,
dissenting.—- When this case was argued I was very much inclined to the opinion that soliciting and receiving applications for insurance in Washington Territory by an agent of a foreign insurance company, and forwarding them from there to the company, although the agent had no authority beyond the right to forward such applications to be examined and passed upon at the home office, would constitute the doing an insurance business within said Territory, and be in violation of its statutes, unless complied with by the company; but the-authorities collected by his honor, Judge Lord, and referred to in the opinion prepared by him in this ease, have changed my preconceived notions upon the subject, and I concur in that opinion to the extent that the insurance upon the life of Yesler by the Alliance Mutual Life Assurance Society was, as a matter of law, effected at the home office of said company, in the State of Kansas, notwithstanding the application therefor was solicited by the agent Covalt, in Washington Territory, was made there, and forwarded by said agent from there. But I am not able to concur in the opinion that the taking the note sued on for a premium, when the insurance was lawfully effected, was doing business within the meaning of the law of Washington Territory. Nor, under the circumstances suggested, do I believe that the legislature of that Territory intended, or could rightfully pass a statute that would render such an act unlawful. If the insurance was lawful, and the premium notes executed by Yesler *47were valid, I am unable to understand why the company had not the right to collect them, or to adjust the claim by taking Yesler’s note, with an indorser, in payment thereof.
If Yesler had been residing in Kansas when the insurance was effected upon his life, and had personally made the application therefor at the home office of the company, had executed the premium notes there, received the policy there, and then emigrated from that State to "Washington Territory, it could not be doubted but that the company, as a matter of course, would have had the right to forward those notes, and collect them of him at their maturity. And the right of the company stands upon the same footing in this case as it would have stood in the case supposed,, and it would no more be doing business, within the meaning of the laws of Washington Territory, in the one case than in the other.
Yesler owed the company a lawful debt, and how could a territorial or State law be construed consistently so as to prevent its collection? If Yesler had been in possession of the tangible property of the company, and it had attempted to recover it from him in Washington Territory, would not that have been doing business there, just as much as its attempt to recover from him its chose in action would have been? In either case, it would have been an effort to obtain from him that which belonged to it legally, and I do not see how such an endeavor could be adjudged a violation of law.
The Washington Territory law certainly only intends that a foreign life insurance company shall not, except under the conditions it imposes, do its insurance business there. It would, to my mind, be unreasonable to suppose that any company of that character could not enforce a payment of lawful obligations due to it without any compliance with such conditions, and an action instituted in its courts would be doing business as much as receiving a promissory note from a debtor.
If an officer intrusted with the funds of the Alliance Company, .at its home office in Kansas City, should run off with them, in violation of his trust, to Washington Territory, could not the company cause his arrest upon civil process, or receive *48indemnity for the injury, without filing in the office of the secretary of that Territory a copy of its articles of incorporation, and appointing an agent as provided in said laws; and would such an attempt to arrest the defaulter, or to obtain satisfaction Avithout suit, be “ commencing to transact business in the Territory,” Avithin the meaning of said laws? Such a requirement, imposed as a condition for doing such an act, would be strange comity. I fear that such a construction of the statutes of our neighboring Territory would do injustice to the courtesy of its citizens. The language of the statute is:—
“That all corporations now existing or hereafter formed under the laAvs of the States, etc., shall have full power and authority to sue and be sued, hold, purchase, and acquire, sell, lease,, and dispose of, real and personal property, and generally to do and perform any and every act, and transact business within this-Territory in the same manner and to the same extent as though said corporation had been organized under the laws of this Territory; provided, that any such corporation hereafter acquiring property or commencing to transact business in this Territory shall first comply with the provisions of section 2 of this act.”
The proviso, it will be seen, only extends to “acquiring property,” and “commencing to transact business.” Taking the note was not “ acquiring property,” as it was but a novation of a debt; nor was it the “commencing to transact business” Avithin the meaning of the statute.
If the act had provided that no foreign lawyer should practice his profession in that Territory without having first been admitted to its courts, it would not extend to the collection of a fee there, earned somewhere else; or that no foreign merchant should carry on business there without a license, surely a merchant at Portland could sell a bill of goods to a Washington Territory citizen at Portland and send over his claim for collection without such a license. The territorial statute may be a wholesome provision of law, but I am at loss to understand why it should have such a latitudinarian construction as is attempted to be given it. The construction, doubtless, will *49operate as a great favor to Yesler. He owed a premium note. It was a legal claim against Mm. He took it up by giving tbe note in suit, and although that has been put in circulation and credit been given upon it, yet, upon what appears to me to be a very flimsy reason, he is enabled to repudiate it. Yesler received the full benefit of the note; the consideration was valid. Hacheny & Beno have doubtless parted with goods upon the faith of it; but the former says that Ms payment and discharge of Ms legal obligation was, under the laws of Washington Territory, an illegal act, and he is relieved from Ms liability.
In my opinion, if such a law existed, it would be “more honored in its breach than in its observance.” I am in favor of a reversal of the judgment. «