Parke v. Commonwealth Insurance

44 Pa. 422, 1863 Pa. LEXIS 89
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMarch 16, 1863
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 44 Pa. 422 (Parke v. Commonwealth Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Parke v. Commonwealth Insurance, 44 Pa. 422, 1863 Pa. LEXIS 89 (Pa. 1863).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered, by

Lowrie, C. J.

The service of the summons was set aside because made “on an agent authorized to effect insurance only,” by which words we understand a travelling agent for procuring applications for insurance, to be transmitted to the regular office of the company for action.

Is such service authorized by the Act of 8th April 1851, § 6, which allows corporations to be sued in any county where they may “have an agency or transact any business”? We think not. This term seems to us to mean corporations that have branch offices, or agencies for the transaction of their business. That corporations should be liable to be sued in any county where they had ever had any matters of business treated about by an agent, or by any plaintiff who may choose to sue them there, whether this claim originated there or not, is surely beyond the intention of the legislature. This intention is better [423]*423expressed in the Act of 1857, allowing insurance companies to be sued in the counties where the property insured is situated; and for trading companies, the Act of 1851 rightly provides that they may be sued in any county where they habitually transact business by an agency or branch. This case does not come within the spirit of the act, for this claim originated at the principal office of the company at Harrisburg, and relates to business with which a travelling agent for obtaining applications has nothing to do. He was not an agent for any purpose of this claim.

The judgment must be set aside, and the proceedings affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kincade v. Maxwell
15 Pa. D. & C. 445 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1931)
Shambe v. Delaware Hudson R. R. Co.
135 A. 755 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1926)
Gengenbach v. Willow Grove Park Co.
124 A. 425 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1924)
Kuyalowicz v. Schuylkill Gas & Electric Co.
1 Pa. D. & C. 159 (Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas, 1921)
Southern Coal Exchange v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.
1 Pa. D. & C. 95 (Alleghany County Court of Common Pleas, 1921)
Eline v. Western Maryland Railway Co.
97 A. 1076 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1916)
Park Brothers & Co. v. Oil City Boiler Works
54 A. 334 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 Pa. 422, 1863 Pa. LEXIS 89, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parke-v-commonwealth-insurance-pa-1863.