|
Hunter v. Mutual Reserve Life Ins. Co., 218 U.S. 573 (1910)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Hunter v. Mutual Reserve Life Ins. Co., 218 U.S. 573 (1910)
Hunter v. Mutual Reserve Life Insurance Company No. 39 Argued November 7, 1910 Decided December 12, 1910 218 U.S. 573
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Syllabus
A few separate and disconnected transactions by a foreign corporation after its withdrawal from a state, all relating to matters existing before such withdrawal, do not constitute doing business in that state so as to preclude such a corporation from revoking the power of attorney to accept process given by it to a state officer as required by statute of the state to enable it to enter and do business in the state. Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Spratley, 172 U.S. 602; Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association v. Phelps, 190 U.S. 147; Mutual Reserve Ins. Co. v. Birch, 200 U.S. 612; Commercial Mutual Accident Co. v. Davis, 213 U.S. 245, distinguished.
A power of attorney to a state officer to accept process required by statute to be given by a foreign corporation as a condition for doing business in the state, although irrevocable in form, may be revocable, on the withdrawal of such corporation from the state, as to matters not connected with business transacted in such state or with residents thereof, and the courts of one state are not required to give full faith and credit, under the federal Constitution, to a judgment of another state against a corporation based on service on a state officer of that state in which said corporation had done business but from which it had in good faith withdrawn after revoking the power of attorney which it had given to such officer as a condition for doing business in the state, and where the cause of action did not arise in, or was not connected with a transaction arising in such state, or in favor of a citizen thereof.
184 N.Y. 136 affirmed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Hunter v. Mutual Reserve Life Ins. Co., 218 U.S. 573 (1910) in 218 U.S. 573 218 U.S. 579. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=FIK4DU62JR1R817.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Hunter v. Mutual Reserve Life Ins. Co., 218 U.S. 573 (1910), in 218 U.S. 573, page 218 U.S. 579. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=FIK4DU62JR1R817.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Hunter v. Mutual Reserve Life Ins. Co., 218 U.S. 573 (1910). cited in 1910, 218 U.S. 573, pp.218 U.S. 579. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=FIK4DU62JR1R817.
|