Universal Life Insurance v. Bachus

Miller, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. It seems to have been the purpose of the defendant in this suit to set up the defence that the Court of Common Pleas had no jurisdiction over the case or cause of action, under that clause of section 211 of the Act of 1868, eh. ³¹ 471, which declares that suits against foreign corporations exercising franchises in this State may be brought in any of the Courts of this State, 1st, “by a resident of this State for any cause of action,” 2nd, “and by a plaintiff not a resident of this State when the cause of action has arisen, or the subject of the action shall be situated in this State.” This clause has been thoroughly considered and construed in Myer’s Case, 40 Md., 595 , and Sidney Norris & Co. vs. The Royal Canadian Ins. Co. Garn. of Foley, 49 Md., 366 . In these cases it was held, that this statutory provision operates as a grant to our Courts of jurisdiction over certain suits against foreign corporations, not otherwise compelled to submit to the jurisdiction of any Court of this State, and hence where the defendant corporation is such as is described, and the plaintiff is a non-resident and the contract on which the suit is instituted, is made and the subject of it situated in another State, no Court of this State has jurisdiction.

It was also decided that this objection could be raised as well after as before a plea to the merits. But in the record before us we do not perceive that the objection has been properly raised at all. 1st. It is clearly not presented by the demurrer to the declaration, for there is nothing in that which shows that the defendant is a foreign corporation or that the plaintiff is a non-resident. The account filed with the declaration forms no part of it, and besides the fact that the affidavit of the plaintiff thereto was made before a notary public in the city of Washington does not prove, and hardly tends to prove she was a resident of that city and not a resident of Maryland.

There was therefore no error in overruling this demurrer. 2nd. It is not raised by the pleas. These are that the defendant, 1st, was not indebted as alleged. 2nd, that it did not promise as alleged. 3rd, that the alleged policy of insurance is not its deed. 4th, non est factum. 5th, that it did not violate any of its covenants. 6th, non in ³² fregit convenfionem, and 7th, “it pleads the general issue to the declaration of the plaintiff.” Issue was joined upon the first and second, and to the others the plaintiff demurred. The declaration is in assumpsit upon an unsealed insurance policy, and to sustain action it is plain the third, fourth, fifth and sixth pleas have no application.

The seventh, if good in form, is merely a repetition of the first and second. The Court committed no error in sustaining this demurrer. 3rd. The refusal of the Court to grant a continuance of the case upon the defendant’s application was a matter wholly