Hunter v. Mutual Reserve Life Ins. Co.
218 U.S. 573 (1910)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Hunter v. Mutual Reserve Life Ins. Co., 218 U.S. 573 (1910)

Hunter v. Mutual Reserve Life Insurance Company

No. 39

Argued November 7, 1910

Decided December 12, 1910

218 U.S. 573

Syllabus

A few separate and disconnected transactions by a foreign corporation after its withdrawal from a state, all relating to matters existing before such withdrawal, do not constitute doing business in that state so as to preclude such a corporation from revoking the power of attorney to accept process given by it to a state officer as required by statute of the state to enable it to enter and do business in the state. Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Spratley,172 U. S. 602; Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association v. Phelps,190 U. S. 147; Mutual Reserve Ins. Co. v. Birch, 200 U.S. 612; Commercial Mutual Accident Co. v. Davis,213 U. S. 245, distinguished.

A power of attorney to a state officer to accept process required by statute to be given by a foreign corporation as a condition for doing business in the state, although irrevocable in form, may be revocable, on the withdrawal of such corporation from the state, as to matters not connected with business transacted in such state or with residents thereof, and the courts of one state are not required to give full faith and credit, under the federal Constitution, to a judgment of another state against a corporation based on service on a state officer of that state in which said corporation had done business but from which it had in good faith withdrawn after revoking the power of attorney which it had given to such officer as a condition for doing business in the state, and where the cause of action did not arise in, or was not connected with a transaction arising in such state, or in favor of a citizen thereof.

184 N.Y. 136 affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Page 218 U. S. 579

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.