§ 199. Distinct Provision for Insurance Companies. A statute of Arkansas provided for a distinct system of regulation of foreign insurance companies under the superintendence of the State auditor, by which every company was required to file with the auditor a stipulation for the service of process upon it, as well as to make full returns of its condition and business to that officer, to report to him the names of all its agents within the State, and to receive from him certificates of authority for itself and for each of its agents.' It was held that a subsequent statute providing that foreign corporations, in general, before undertaking to do business in the State, should, by a certificate filed with the secretary of State, designate a citizen of the State upon whom service of process could be made, and its principal place of business in the State,' had no application to insurance companies; that it was evidently contemplated by the legislature that foreign insurance companies would continue under the superintendence of the State auditor, and continue to file their stipulations for service of process, as well as their returns and other documents, in his office; and that they would have no principal place of business in the State, but would transact their business in the usual manner through manner through agents at different places.3 § 200. Acceptance of Service by Appointed Agent. -So it has been held that the appointment of the State superintendent of insurance to receive 1 Mansf. Dig. §§ 3831-3834; Stat. 1887, ch. 84. 2 Act Ark. April 4, 1887, ch. 135. 3 St. Louis, etc. R. Co. Commercial Ins. Co., 139 U. S. 223, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 554; Marine Ins. Co. v. St. Louis, etc. R. Co., 41 Fed. Rep. service of process will not authorize him to accept service by mail and such service is void.' § 201. Revocation of Agent's Power. The revocation of the agent's power to receive service, by the foreign company, will not be permitted to prejudice the rights of citizens or to oust the jurisdiction of the courts over controversies which have arisen, although the jurisdiction has not actually attached by the bringing of suits. And if 3 a foreign insurance company, after revoking the agent's authority to receive service, permits him. to continue to act in apparently the same capacity, to receive premiums, adjust losses, etc., its motion to quash service on such agent on the ground that he had no authority for that purpose will be overruled. § 202. Sufficiency of Appointment. Under a statute requiring the appointment by a foreign insurance company of the superintendent of insurance as its agent for the service of process, an appointment in writing of the superintendent of insurance "and his successor in office" was held to be a sufficient designation, although the individual name of the superintendent was not inserted in the power of attorney. Where the statute required the corporation to file a certificate designating an agent residing at its principal place of business upon whom 1 Farmer v. National L. Assn., 50 Fed. Rep. 829. 2 Michael v. Mut. Ins. Co., 10 La. An. 737. See also Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Duersen, 28 Gratt, 630, 644. In that case it was expressly provided by the statute, that the company should not revoke the authority of the agent to receive service until it had appointed another in his place as long as any of its obligations in the State remained unsatisfied. Compare Gross v. Nichols, Shepard & Co., 72 Iowa, 239, 33 N. W. Rep. 653. 3 Etna Life Ins. Co. v. Hanna 81 Tex. 487, 17 S. W. Rep. 35. process might be served, a certificate designating "the general manager of said corporation" residing at the place indicated as the principal place of business, was held sufficient; the fact, that the name of the particular person who filled the position of general manager at the date of the certificate was not given, was regarded as immaterial, in the absence of any allegation that there was, at that time, no such officer of the corporation, as a general manager.' § 203. Failure of Company to Comply with the Statute―Estoppel.-But the doctrine of estoppel will prevent the company from pleading a defect in the service which was caused by its own interpretation, or disregard of the principles of the statute.' Thus, where the statute required the appointment of an attorney at law, in each county where the company's agencies were established, to receive service of process, but the company appointed a firm of its agents, who were not lawyers, instead, it was held that the company was concluded by the fact that it had adopted and treated them as its agents for the purpose stated. And under a statute requiring a foreign company to file a stipulation that process against it might be served on the auditor of the State, it was held that if the company does business in the State, service of process on the auditor was good personal service on the company, although 1 Goodwin v. Colorado Mtge Co., 110 U. S. 1, 8 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 147. 2 Gibson v. Manufacturers' F. & M. Ins. Co., 144 Mass. 81, 10 N. E. Rep. 729; Ehrman v. Teutonia Ins. Co., 1 McCrary, 123; Hagerman v. Empire Slate Co., 97 Pa. St. 537. 3 Gibson v. Manufacturers' F. & M. Ins. Co., 144 Mass. 81, 10 N. E. Rep. 729. the stipulation had not been filed with the auditor. And when the foreign company has failed to exercise its privilege, under the statute, of designating an agent, service on its managing agent within the State has been held sufficient." § 204. Same Company not Disqualified to Sue.As we have seen elsewhere the company is not disqualified in the absence of a specific statutory provision from maintaining a suit by its failure to comply with the statute requiring the appointment of such agent, though it is ground of abatement to the action as prematurely brought. And such statutes. have been held to have no effect upon suits in replevin by a foreign corporation, or its agent to recover possession of its property.* § 205. Concealment to Avoid Service.-Where the agent appointed to receive service, conceals himself to avoid being served, it is the concealment of the corporation, and the court is at liberty to act accordingly, and may direct an order on such company to show cause why it should not be punished for contempt in disobeying a mandatory order, to be served upon. the company's attorneys of record, and after due service, proceed to hear the order to show cause, and adjudge the same." 1 Ehrman Teutonia Ins. Co., 1 McCrary, 123. 2 Thomas v. Placerville, etc. M. Co., 65 Cal. 600. See also Moch v. Virginia F. & M. Ins. Co., 10 Fed. Rep. 696; Hagerman v. Empire Slate Co., 97 Pa. St. 534; Funk v. Anglo-American Ins. Co., 27 Fed. Rep. 336. Ante, §§ 84, 92. 4 Smith v. Little, 67 Ind. 549. Eureka Lake Co. v. Yuba County, 116 U. S. 410. SECTION: Subdivision 3.-SUFFICIENCY OF THE SERVICE. 208. No Jurisdiction of Company which does not Come Within the State. 209. Service on Officer Incidentally Within the State on Personal Business. 210. Service on Officer Temporarily in the State on Corporate Busi 215. Who is an "Agent" Within the Statutes-Instances of Sufficient 218. Same-Further Illustrations. 219. Character of Officer Served as a Question of Fact. 220. Return of Process. 221. Presumption in Favor of Validity of Service. 222. Remedy in Such Cases-Plea to Jurisdiction. 223. Writ of Prohibition. § 208. No Jurisdiction of Company which does not Come Within the State.-Manifestly, if a corporation confines its operations to the State which chartered it, it cannot be subjected to suit in a foreign jurisdiction. Having no extraterritorial existence, the comity of recognition will be extended to it only when it demands it, by seeking to exercise its corporate capacity within the territory of the foreign sovereign; and it can be extended to it, only within that territory. Comity will not, in the nature of things, be extended unin |