1872]

Suicide-Unlawful Contract.

891

stream. The body was found a few days afterward in a pond near the bridge. There was a wound upon the head and a break in the corresponding part of the hat. The policy only applied to cases where the death was caused by an injury received from an accident. Held, that from the facts it appeared that the death was either caused by an injury received from an accident, or by the suicidal act of the deceased, and that the presumption is against the latter. Held, also, that if a wound produced by an accident did not cause his death, but did cause him to fall into the water, were he died from drowning, then his death was accidental, and it was for the jury to say how the wound was caused, and to determine its effect upon the question whether the death was the result of an accidental injury or whether the deceased had destroyed his own life.

Mallory vs. Travelers' Ins. Co.

UNLAWFUL CONTRACT.

-§ 211.

$224. HEALTH.-State Legislation-Foreign Corporation-Citizenship of Corporation. The appellee was a citizen and resident of Illinois, and the appellant an insurance company incorporated under the laws of Ohio. An act of the Illinois legislature provided that it should not be lawful for any agent of any insurance company, incorporated by any other State, to directly or indirectly take risks or transact any business of insurance in that State without first furnishing the State Auditor a statement of the affairs of the company, and procuring from him a certificate of authority to do business. The appellee gave the note sued on for stock in the company, and for the premium on a health policy. At the time the policy was issued and the note given the company had not complied with the provisions of the act. Held, that corporations created in another State are not citizens of such State within the meaning of the federal constitution, and that State legislatures have the power to impose conditions upon which insurance or other corporations chartered beyond the State may do business in its territory, and that the right of protecting their citizens against the fraud and imposition of insolvent or spurious corporations, created by other States, was clearly within

892

Digest of Decisions.

[Aug.

the scope of legislative power possessed by the various States of the Union.

Ducat vs. City of Chicago, 48 Ill., 173; Paul vs. State of Virginia, 8 Wal., 168.

Held, also, that if the charter of the Ohio company declared that it might do business in other States, it could only operate as an authority to the company to do so on such terms as other States might prescribe. Held, also, that the contract is absolutely void as to the appellee,

(Munsell vs. Temple, 3 Gilm., 9,)

And that the fact that the legislature imposed by a subsequent section of the act a penalty for the violation of the provisions of the law, does not in the remotest degree legalize or give validity to the note.

Bensley vs. Biguold, 5 Barn. & Ald., 335; Law vs. Hodgson, 2 Camp., 147, (11 East., 300 ;) Langton vs. Hughes, 2 Maule & Selw., 593; Briggs vs. Lawrence, 3 T. R., 454; Clugus vs. Pinkham, 4 T. R., 466; Waymell vs. Ried, 5 T. R., 599; Wheeler vs. Russell, 17 Mass., 258.

Cin. Mut. Health Assur. Co. vs. Rosenthal.*

Rep'd Jour'l, p. 813.

* Decision rendered January 25th, 1871.

ILL. 8. C.