Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/722

 710 FEDERAL REPORTER. �peared in a court of general jurisdiction, and formally submitted to that court the question whether Taber was such an agent as that serv- ice of citation upon him would bring it into court, and that court having decided against it the issue thus raised by itself, I am bound to consider the defendant estopped by the Louisiana judgment from retrying that question here. �On the whole case, in conclusion, I concur in the view taken of it by plaintiff's counsel in Louisiana, expressed in the language quoted in the brief of plaintiff's counsel here : �" It appears to me that the appearance, called an exception, put at issue the agency of Taber. The plaintifi had broadly averred in her petition that Taber was the agent of the defendant ; that her contract was made with Taber as the agent of the defendant ; that she paid the premiums to him as agent of the defendant; and that the defendant had ratifled and confirmed the contract made by Taber, by accepting and using the premiums paid. These facts al- leged by the plaintifE were the raaterial substance of her case; and the paper called an exception was nothing more than an answer and deniai of these ma- terial facts alleged by the plaintifC. That issue was tried, and proof made, that Taber did make the contract, and no one else did, and the premiums did go to the defendant. It is true that no certificate was sliown from the seere- tary of state, under the statute of 1877 ; but the defendant is always presumed to have complied with the law, and cannot be heard to say that he violated our laws by taking risks or transacting business so positively forbidden by law, in order to reap a reward or to avoid an obligation based upon his own wroug and turpitude." �The defendant 's demurrer to the plaintiff's replication must be overruled. ���MocH and another v. ViRaiNiA Fiee & Marine Ins. Co. �[Gircuit Court, E. D. Virginia. March 18, 1882.) �Bond, C. J. This cause having been heard in the circuit court, then presided over by the district judge, bas been submitted to me, with his consent, as if on motion for a new trial. I have carefully read the elaborate briefs of the parties, and fully concur in the opin- ion and judgment of the district judge. ��� �