Occidental Life Insurance v. Lawrence, 204 N.C. 707 (1933)

June 14, 1933 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

204 N.C. 707

OCCIDENTAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. GEORGE LAWRENCE and MARTIN O. LAWRENCE.

(Filed 14 June, 1933.)

Venue A c — Insurance company complying with. O. S., 6411, acquires right to sue and be sued as domestic corporation.

Where a foreign insurance corporation has fully complied with the provisions of C. S., 6411, and has moved its head office to this State and has domesticated here, it acquires the right to sue and be sued in the courts of this State as a domestic corporation, C. S., 466, 467, 468, 469, and where it brings a transitory action in the county of its residence the defendants are not entitled to removal to the county of their residence as a matter of right, for although C. S., 1181, excludes insurance companies from its operation, the statutes will be construed in relation to their subject-matter, and the exception in O. S., 1181, being because insurance companies are exclusively dealt with elsewhere.

Appeal by defendants from Cramner, J., at 20 April Term, 1933, of "WaKE.

Affirmed.

On 16 February, 1933, the Occidental Life Insurance Company instituted an action in the Superior Court of Wake County against George Lawrence and Martin Lawrence, who are citizens and residents of Carteret County. The defendants filed a motion before the clerk of the Superior Court of Wake County before answer (C. S., 470) for change of venue and removal of the cause from Wake County to Carteret County, where the defendants reside. The clerk of the Superior Court of Wake County, N. C., found certain facts and rendered the following judgment:

“This cause coining on to be heard before the undersigned clerk of the Superior Court of Wake County upon motion of the defendants for change of venue for the above entitled cause from Wake County to Carteret County, and it appearing to the court, and the court finding facts as follows: (1) That the Occidental Life Insurance Company, plaintiff, is an insurance corporation, organized, created and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New Mexico. (2) That the said Occidental Life Insurance Company has fully complied with the requirements of section 6411, C. S., and is duly domesticated as an insurance corporation in the State of North Carolina, with its head office and principal place of business in the city of Raleigh, county of Wake, and is duly authorized to conduct and to carry on an insurance business in North Carolina. (3) That all of the records of the said company are kept in its head office and principal place of business in Raleigh, North Carolina, county of Wake, which is the place of business of all of the offices of said company; that the by-laws of the said corporation provide that the principal and head office of the company shall be in the city of Raleigh, State of North Carolina, and that meetings of stockholders, directors and executive committee shall be held at the said office. (4) That the said Occidental Life Insurance Company, plaintiff herein, has duly qualified as a domestic company under the Revenue Act of the State of North Carolina, and is taxable as such, having in the State of North Carolina more than one-fifth of its assets, and pursuant to said act the said company has duly qualified with the Insurance Commissioner of the State of North Carolina a domestic insurance company. (5) That, therefore, for all intents and purposes, and pursuant to the statutes and laws of the State of North Carolina, the said Occidental Life Insurance Company is a duly qualified domesticated corporation with its principal office and place of business in the city of Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina, and that Wake County is the proper venue for the above entitled action. Therefore, it is considered, ordered and adjudged that motion of defendants filed herein for change of venue be and the same is hereby denied.”

To the signing of the foregoing judgment and to the refusal of the clerk to grant a change of venue for the above entitled cause from Wake County Superior Court to Carteret County Superior Court, the defendants except and appeal to the Superior Court of Wake County.

Tbe judgment of tbe court below is as follows: “This cause coming on to be beard before tbe undersigned judge of tbe Superior Court presiding over tbe courts of Wake County, upon appeal of tbe defendants from judgment of tbe clerk of tbe Superior Court of Wake County denying defendants’ motion for removal of tbe above entitled cause from Wake County to Carteret County, as a matter of right, and it appearing to tbe court tbat tbe judgment of tbe clerk, heretofore entered, is in all respects proper and in accordance with law, tbe same is hereby affirmed. Tbis 20 April, 1933. E. H. Obanmeb, Judge Presiding.”

To tbe foregoing judgment as signed defendants excepted, assigned error and appealed to tbe Supreme Court.

Willis Smith and John H. Anderson, Jr., for plaintiff. ' ^ •

G. R. Wheatley for defendants. • \

Claeicson, J.

Tbe question involved: Where a foreign insurance corporation has submitted to domestication in tbis State by filing its certificate of incorporation with tbe Insurance Commissioner, and by otherwise complying with tbe provisions of Consolidated Statutes, 6411, and has designated Wake County as tbe location of its principal office, and has more than one-fifth of its entire property located in tbis State, does such corporation thereby acquire the right to sue and be sued on a transitory cause of action in tbe courts of tbe county of its principal office? We think so.

C. S., 1181, in part, is as follows: “Requisites for permission to do business. Every foreign corporation before being permitted to do business in tbis State, insurance companies excepted, shall file in tbe office of tbe Secretary of State a copy of its charter or articles of agreement,” etc.

In Smith-Douglass Co. v. Honeycutt, ante, 219, at p. 221, it is said: “Here tbe plaintiff submitted to domestication by complying with tbe requisites of permission to conduct its business in tbis State. C. S., 1181. It thereby acquired tbe right to sue and be sued in tbe courts of tbis State as a domestic corporation and as tbe place of its residence as defined by statute is tbe county of Pasquotank, tbe plaintiff bad tbe right to bring its suit in that county.” See C. S., 466, 467, 468 and 469.

C. S., 6411, under “Insurance,” in part, is as follows: “Conditions of admission — A foreign insurance company may be admitted and authorized to do business when it: (1) Deposits with tbe Insurance Commissioner a certified copy of its charter or certificate of organization and a statement of its financial condition and business, in such form and detail as be requires, signed and sworn to by its president and secretary or other proper officer, and pays for tbe filing of tbis statement the sum required by law. (2) Satisfies the Insurance Commissioner, that it is fully and legally organized under the laws of its State or government to do the business it proposes to transact. . . . (3) By a duly executed instrument filed in his office constitutes and appoints the Insurance Commissioner and his successor its true and lawful attorney, upon whom all lawful processes in any action or legal proceeding against it may be served. . . . (4) Appoints as its agent or agents in this State some resident or residents thereof. (5) Obtains from the Insurance Commissioner a certificate that it has complied with the laws of the State and is authorized to make contracts of insurance,” etc.

Defendants contend that C. S., 1181, excepts insurance companies. So it does, as there were other statutes that dealt exclusively with insurance companies. The statutes must be construed in relation to the subj.ect-matter. The clerk found, which was sustained on appeal by the court below, “That the said Occidental Life Insurance Company has fully complied with the requirements of section 6411, C. S., and is duly domesticated as an insurance corporation in the State of North Carolina,” etc.

Ve think the findings of fact correct and by analogy the case of Smith-Douglass Co. v. Honeycutt, supra, controlling. The judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.