Henning v. Planters' Ins. Co.
United States Circuit Court
At Law. This was an action upon the judgment of a state court in Illinois, and the facts are stated in the opinion. It appears by the proof which was rejected that the defendant company issued the policy of insurance through a broker at Chicago, and that it had issued many other policies through that and other brokers; the business all being done by mail, and the policies sent to and delivered at Chicago.
Read the full summary
At Law. This was an action upon the judgment of a state court in Illinois, and the facts are stated in the opinion. It appears by the proof which was rejected that the defendant company issued the policy of insurance through a broker at Chicago, and that it had issued many other policies through that and other brokers; the business all being done by mail, and the policies sent to and delivered at Chicago. The company did not comply, nor attempt to comply, with the statutes of Illinois regulating the business of foreign insurance companies in that state, and appointed no agent to receive…
1Opinion of the CourtHammond, J.
On the authority of the case of St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U. S. 350, S. C. 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 354, it is my opinion that the judgment here must be for the defendant company. Mr. Justice Field there says:
“It is sufficient to observe that we aro of opinion that, when service is made within the state upon an agent of a foreign corporation, it is essential, in order to support the jurisdiction of the court to render a personal judgment, that it should appear somewhere in the record — .either in the application for the writ, or accompanying its service, or in the pleadings, or the finding of the court —…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Pennoyer v. NeffSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- St. Clair v. CoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Hart v. SansomSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Pana v. BowlerSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Merrill v. MontgomeryMichigan Supreme Court · 1872
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Morris v. DooleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1894
- Cæsar v. CapellU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Tennessee · 1897
- Minetree v. MinetreeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1930
- Banco De Sonora v. MoralesArizona Supreme Court · 1922
- Miller v. Minerals Separation Ltd.District Court, N.D. California · 1921
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.