Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Dempsey

Bryan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Dempsey obtained a judgment against the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company of New York on a policy of insurance on the life of his wife. Several questions arise on this appeal. The defendant pleaded, among other defences, that it was not a body corporate.

At the trial the plaintiff offered in evidence a book found among the hooks and ²⁹³ papers in the office of the Insurance Commissioner of the State of Maryland, which was shown to be the only book in the office bearing the defendant’s name. This book contained a document which purported to be a copy of the defendant’s charter, and a copy of its by-laws, with a certificate purporting to be signed by its Secretary and Vice-President that it was a true copy of its charter and by-laws. There seems to have been a seal attached to this certificate, but the record does not state whose seal it was. The defendant excepted to the admission of the book in evidence.

The statute (now embodied in the Code) makes it unlawful, under certain penalties, for an insurance company chartered by any other State, to do business in this State before a copy of its charter is filed with the .Insurance Commissioner, and a power of attorney appointing a citizen of this State to receive service of legal process in its behalf. There are other requirements which it is not now necessary to mention. Article 23, sections 124, 121 and 138. They do not appear to have been obeyed by the defendant.

If the plaintiff could have proved that this defendant was using the corporate name mentioned in the copy of the charter offered in evidence and was exercising the franchises therein granted, under the organization set forth in the by-laws, it would have been competent to lay these facts before the jury, and on this evidence it would have been legitimate for them to infer (if they so believed) that the copy of the charter was filed in the office of the Insurance Commissioner by the defendant’s authority. It would have been its duty to file it ; it would have derived a benefit from filing it, and would have been liable to punishment if it had failed to file it. Of course, if filed by its authority as its charter of incorporation, it would have been evidence against itself to prove its corporate existence. Now, the plaintiff could not prove all these facts at the same instant.

H°e was obliged to estab ²⁹⁴ lish his case progressively. One of the facts to be proved was that a document of the kind in question was in the office of the Insurance Commissioner, and he had a right to begin his case by offering this proof. In Plank Road Company vs. Bruce, 6 Md., 457, it was held that a plaintiff might offer his proof in any order which he chose ; and that if the evidence was material to the issue, the Court had no right to require that he should state in advance that he intended to follow it up with other proof. The other evidence which the plaintiff offered on this question was rather meagre ; but the defendant’s proof showed that it was carrying on business in the City of Baltimore under the corporate name ; that it received applications for life insurance and issued policies according to established forms ; that it had a home office in New York City, and an agency in Baltimore ; that it had a president, a secretary, superintendents and assistant superintendents ; and that its policies contained stipulations in reference to suits to be brought against it.

The defendant offered ten prayers for the instruction of the jury. The first prayer (which was refused) was as follows : “ That if the jury find that this cause was not commenced until more than six months after the death of Mrs. Dempsey, then such fact, under the terms of the contract of insurance sued on, is conclusive evidence against the plaintiff’s claim, and their verdict .must be for the defendant.” The original policy of insurance was not offered in evidence, it having been lost . or mislaid. The defendant produced a paper-writing, and offered evidence that it was a correct copy of the policy. It contained the following clause: “No suit shall be brought nor action commenced against said company under this policy, until ten days shall have expired after the filing of proofs in its chief office, nor after six months from the date of death of the insured; ²⁹⁵ it being understood and agreed that if any such suit or action be commenced after said six months, the lapse of time