69e fEUSBAL BEFOBTER. �MooH and another v. Vibginia Pire k Marine Ins. Co. [Oircull Court, B. B. Virginia. February, 1882.) �L JuEisDiCTioir— Rb8 Adjudicata. �Where a court of general jurisdiction in another sovereignty has passed upon the question of its own jurisdiction, when expressly raised by plea and neces- sarily considered in giving judgment, the parties to auch suit are bound in a home court under the principle of res adjudicata. �%. Bame— FoREiGN Judgment — Estoppel. �In such a suit against an insurance company in a home court on a judgment from a court of another sovereignty, though the court may looli behind the judgment of the court a quo into the question of the jurisdiction of that court over the subject-matter or parties, and into the validity of the process by which suit there was commenced ; yet this power does not, as of course, relieve par- ties to the suits from the operation of the principle of re» adjudicata. �3. Instjrancib Company — Non-Rebident— Service of Procbss on Rbsiobnt �Agent. �An insurance company, chartered and reaident in one state, which does busi- ness in another state through an agent there, who recoives risks, collects premiums, signs and delivers policies, and transacts the business usually done by the resident agent of a non-resident corporation, may be sued in that state, if its statute law does not forbid, by the service of process on that agent, whether he has express power of attorney to receive or aocept such service or not. �4. Same — Statb Law as to Non-Rksident Corporations. �And this is especially so where a law of such state requires every non-resi- dent insurance company to have at least one agent in the state empowered to receive service of process, and requires evert/ agent who receives risks, or col- leots premiums, or transacts business for such company, to have a certiticate of such warrant. 6. Practice — Plea to JtrRisDiOTiON — Decision on, is Binding Eveuywhere. �A peremptory exception, such as is used in the practice in Louisiana, which denies that a resident agent of a non-resident insurance corporation is such an agent as that service upon him of process for commencing a suit will bring the corporation into court, is equivalent to the common-law plea to the juris- diction ; and, although it alleges that the defendant corporation appears "alone to file it," it submits the question of jurisdiction to the court in such manner that judgment against the defendant, upon it there, by a court of gen- erai jurisdiction, binds the defendants everywhere. �This is an action brought upon a judgment for $3,000, with inter- est and costs, obtained by the plaintiff against the defendant in the district court of the parish of Caddo, Loaisiana, on the twelfth of April, 1879. The judgment in Louisiana was obtained on a policy of fire insurance issued by the defendant to the plaintiff, through John W. Taber, its agent at Shreveport. Process there was issued on the seventeenth of January, 1879, against the defendant company, "through its agent, John W. Taber," and was served on Taber. The ��� �
