Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/95

 ELLIS V. CONNBCTICUT MOT. LIFB INS. 00. 81 �considered the answer net such an one, in this or other respects, as the defendant was entitled to file under the order of the court, he should have moved to strike it out. �Besides, the object of making the order allowing the defendant to file an answer nunc pro tune was not so much, if at all, to compel him to make a defence to the action, as to give him the privilege of so doing, 80 as to secure to himself beyond a peradventure the benefit of his stipulation that his case should abide the event of the other one. �The stipulation was made without an answer being filed, and vir- tually suspended proceediugs in the case; and if the defendant had seen proper he might have waited until there was a final judgment in the case against Humason, and if such judgment was for the de- fendant tien nioved on his stipulation to dismiss the action against him without answering the complaint at all. �But apart from the attempted deniai of the execution of the bonds, the answer is a sufficient defence to the action, as it contaihs an allegation to the efifect that Logan faithfully kept the condition of his bonds. That is sufficient to support the verdict and prevent the record from being erroneous on its face, and that was the only object in allowing an answer to be filed at all. �These are all the special grounds on which a new trial is asked in this case, and they are not sufficient. �For this and the reasons given in U. S. v. Humason, the motion is denied. ���Ellis, Adm'x, etc., v. Conneotiout Mut. Life Ins. Co. �{Circuit Court, J). Conneetieut. July 14, 1881.) �1. Statute— Prospective — Ween. �Statutes are to be considered prospective, unless the language is such as to leave no doubt that they were intended to be retrospective. �2. Von» Judgment. �Upon a void judgment no action can be maintained. �3. Pkocbss— Samb. �The statute of Virginia passed in 1856, regulating the conduct of the business of foreign life insurance companies Tcho should do business therein, provided, among other things, that such companies should have an agent in that state upon whom service of process could be made. In 1877 the existing Jaw was amended so as to provide that, in case of the death of such an agent, his Per- sonal representative was authorized to accept service of process against such corporation. In 1852 the defendant, a foreign Company, insured the deceaaed, Lewis Ellis, and in 1856 dulv appointed an agent with authority to accept v.8,no.2— 6 ��� �