Plunkett v. Hopley

(dissenting).&emdash;The opinion of the majority in this case, as I view it, is the exact negative of the plain, unam biguous language of Section 8958, Code of 1927, and of the obvious intent of the legislature. The statement in the opinion quoted from Cook v. Weirman, 51 Iowa 561, that the purpose of the statute is “to discourage unauthorized companies from doing business in this state, ’ ’ is without contrary significance. • If this be conceded to be the purpose, how does it conceivably affect the statute? The court held, in the cited case, that the omission of the words1 'for insurance, ’…