Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/259

 2 I6

tized her. No expert evidence as to the pos sibilities or effects of hypnotism was offered, and in view of this the court holds the evi dence insufficient to sustain the recovery. INSURANCE. (CANCELLATION OK POLICY—FRAUD — FEDERAL EQUITY JURISDICTION—REMOVAL OF CAUSES —PENALTY OF EXCLUSION FROM STATE.) UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

Cable v. United States Life Insurance Company, 24 Supreme Court Reporter 74, was a suit by the insurance company to can cel a policy on the ground of fraud of the agents of the insured, begun in the United States Circuit Court. The question on the certiorari to the Supreme Court was as to the equity jurisdiction of the court below. In the most interesting portion of the opinion the court says: "We start with the proposi tion that, to any action brought upon the policy in a Federal court, the company would have a complete and adequate defense by proving the fraud as alleged in the bill herein. That shows a defense in the sanie jurisdiction resorted to by the complainant herein. It is answered, however, that the action [on the policy] has not been com menced in the Federal court, but, on the contrary, the administratrix has commenced her action in the State court, and hence the defense, if made in the State court, is not in the same jurisdiction as that in which the bill in this case was filed. But the company may bring its defense within the same juris diction by removing the case from the State to the Federal court, which it has the right to do on account of the diversity of citizen ship of the parties thereto." Doyle v. Continental Insurance Company, 94 Northeastern 525, 24 L. ed. 148 is then referred to, in which it was held that a State might revoke the license of a foreign insur ance company as a penalty for removing a case to the Federal courts. Whether this case has been shaken by the subséquent cases of Barron v. Burnside, 121 U. S. 186, 199, 30 L. ed. 915, 919, i Inters. Com. Rep. 295, 7 Supreme Court Reporter 931; Blake v. McGung. 172 U. S. 239, 254, 43 L. ed. 432, 437, 19 Supreme Court Reporter 165, and Day

ton Coal & I. Co. v. Barton, 183 U. S. 23, 25, 46 L. ed. 61, 64, 22 Supreme Court Re porter 5,—the court says is not material. One thing is clear; the company could have removed the administratrix' case from the State to the Federal court, notwithstanding the State statute requiring its exclusion from the State in case it did so, and whether as a result of such removal the State would have the right, by reason of the statute, to revoke the company's license, is not a question which it is necessary to determine. The em barrassment attaching to the company on account of the removal is one of its own creation. As a condition upon which it was admitted to do business in the State it vol untarily signed an application in which it promised to accept a license according to the State law and agreed that the license should terminate in case it removed an action to the Federal court. If the condition be ille gal, and no ground for revocation of the license, any subsequent litigation which the company may have with the State officials is still a matter caused by its own action, and does not, in the court's judgment, furnish any ground for Federal jurisdiction. JUDGMENTS. (ADJUDICATION OF SISTER STATEFULL FAITH AND CREDIT—DENIAL OF RIGHT OF ACTION.) UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

In Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Davis Provision Co., 24 Supreme Court Re porter 92, the provision of the New York Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 1780, providing that a foreign corporation may sue another foreign corporation only in certain cases, among which is the one where the cause of action arose within the State, though con strued by the New York courts as preclud ing an action on the judgment of a sister State by one foreign corporation against an other, is held not to violate Constitution, Art. 4, Sec. I, guaranteeing full faith and credit to such judgments. The court says the precis.' point has not been decided by it, but that it has been laid down in cases that raise great er difficulties, that this provision of the Con stitution establishes a rule of evidence rather