Stevens v. Rasin Fertilizer Co.

Bryan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The Commonwealth Mutual Fire Insurance Company, á body corporate of the State of Massachusetts, issued several policies of insurance, whereby it insured against fire certain property of the Rasin Fertilizer Company, a body corporate of the State of Maryland. It is admitted that the Massachusetts corporation has never complied with sections 118, 119 and 124 of Article 23 of the Code of Public General Laws of this State. These sections enact that it shall not be lawful for any insurance company incorporated under ⁶⁸⁴ the laws of another State “ to take risks or transact any insurance business in this State,” unless it has performed the conditions required by their terms.

The important question in this case is whether the risks covered by the policies were taken in this State. The question arose in the Court below in an action brought by the receiver of the Insurance Company to recover certain assessments made on the policies. The defendant pleaded “that the defendant applied to an insurance broker in the city of Baltimore, in the State of Maryland, for insurance upon its property and assets; that said insurance broker in the city of Baltimore made application by mail to insurance brokers in New York for such insurance ; whereupon, said insurance brokers in New York made application for the same to the manager of the said Commonwealth Mutual Fire Insurance at its office in the city of Boston, State of Massachusetts; whereupon, said policies, and each of them, were made out and signed in Boston, and forwarded by its manager by mail to said brokers in New York, and by said brokers in New York said policies, and each of them were then by mail forwarded to said broker in Baltimore, in the State of Maryland, and that said broker in Baltimore upon the receipt of said policies respectively delivered the same to the defendant in Baltimore, and after the delivery of said policies, respectively, the defendant paid in Baltimore to said broker in Baltimore, the full amount of the premium mentioned in said policies respectively; that thereafter the said broker in Baltimore, after first deducting from the premium so received by him from the defendant, his commissions for services rendered in the premises, remitted the balance to said brokers in New York who, upon receipt of the same, deducted their commission for their services in the premises, and remitted the balance to the Commonwealth Mutual Fire Insurance Company in Boston; all of which was with the knowledge and consent of said last-named corporation.” We have quoted from the plea in its words, so that we might have the question distinctly ⁶⁸⁵ in our minds. On demurrer, the plea was sustained and judgment entered for the defendant.

The plaintiff has appealed. There is no doubt that the broker in the city of Baltimore was the agent of the defendant for procuring insurance. This agent appointed sub-agents in the city of New York. These sub-agents obtained the policies from the Insurance Company.

When they were put in the mail at Boston the Insurance Company signified its willingness to take the risk on defendant’s property according to the terms contained in the policies. But certainly the contract of insurance was