Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. v. Gold Issue Mining Co., 243 U.S. 93 (1917)

Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 243 U.S. 90, click here.

Pennsylvania Fire Insurance Company v.

Gold Issue Mining & Milling Company
No. 584

Argued January 29, 1917
Decided March 6, 1917
243 U.S. 93

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Syllabus

A fire insurance company, to obtain a license to do business in Missouri, filed with the Superintendent of the Insurance Department of that state, under Missouri Rev.Stats., 1909, § 7042, a power of attorney consenting that service of process on him should be deemed personal service on the company so long as it should have any liabilities outstanding in the state. The Missouri Supreme Court, construing the statute, held that the consent covered service in an action in Missouri on a policy issued in Colorado insuring buildings in the latter state. Held that the construction had a rational basis in the statute, and therefore could not be deemed to deprive the company of due process of law, even if it took it by surprise. O’Neil v. Northern Colorado Irrigation Co., 242 U.S. 20, 26. When a power actually is conferred by a document, the party executing it takes the risk of the interpretation that may be put upon it by the court. Old Wayne Mutual Life Association v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, and Simon v. Southern Ry. Co., 236 U.S. 115, distinguished.

A mere error of Construction committed by a state court in a candid effort to construe the laws of another state is not a denial of full faith and credit (Const., Art. IV, § 1), entitling the complaining party to come to this Court.

267 Mo. 524 affirmed.

The case is stated in the opinion.