Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/485

 EHEMAN V, TEUTONIA INS. CO. e77 �auditor, from the fact of its doing business in the state; and the presumption, from that fact, of assent to service in the mode prescribed by the statute, is conclusive, and no aver- ment or evidence to the contrary is admissible to defeat the jurisdiction. The reason of this rule is that the obligation to file the stipulation is imposed for the protection of the citizen dealing with the company, and when, by its own act, its obli- gation to file the stipulation is perfect, as between the Com- pany and the citizen, the company will not be permitted to relieve itself from a liability which the written stipulation, would have imposed by pleading its own fraud on the law of the state and her citizens. In such cases the law conclu- sively presumes that to have been done which law and duty and the rights of the party contracting with the company required to be done. It is a familiar principle that jurisdic- tion cannot be acquired by fraud, nor can it be evaded by such a fraud as is here attempted to be set up. �The maxim that no man shall take advantage of his own wrong is as applicable to corporations as to natural persons, and applies as well to the kind of agreement under consider- ation as to any other. �Insurance companies incorporated by the laws of one state bave no absolute right to do business in another state, with- out the consent, express or -implied, of the latter state. �This consent may be given on such terms as the state may think fit to impose, and these conditions are binding on the company, and effect will be given to them in the courts of ail the states and the United States. Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. 404; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168. �"Ono of these conditions may be that it shall consent to be sued there. If it do business there, it will be presumed to have assented and will be bound accordingly." Railroad Co. V. Harris, 12 Wall. 65. �The principle established in the case last cited bas been afïirmed in later cases. Railway Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270, 285; Ex parte SchoUenberger, 96 U. S. 369; and see Hayden v. Androscoggin Mills, 9 Eep. 270; Albrlght v. Em- ��� �