HOBTHWESTERN SIUT. LIFB ISS. CO. V, ELLIOTT. ���Northwestern Mut. Lii^ Ins. Co. v. Elliott and others. �{Circuit Gov/rt, D. Oregon. December 29, 1880.) �L CoNTRACT, WHœBB Mabw.— rA policy was issuea from the office of the plaintifl, in Milwaukee, y/isconsin, upon the life of M. E., in Port- land, Oregon, and forwarded to the local agent there for dellvery, containing a clause to the eSect thàt the policy was net bindingnpon the Company nntil countersigned and dellvered there and the pretnium paid accordingly. Edd, that the contract was completed in Oregon, that its validity must be determined by the laws of Oregon, and that the plaintifl beihg then prohibited from doing business in Oregon, the contract was null and void. �2. MoNBT Obtainbd by Fbaud. — J. E., the assignee of the aforesaid pol- �icy, obtained from the plaintifE thereon the sum of $7,931.97 upon the false and fraudulent representation that the assured was dead. Held, that, nothwithgtanding the illegality of the contract of insurance, the plaintifl might maintain a suit against J. E. to obtain the money so fraudulently obtained by him. �3. Citizen dp Anothbk Statb— Right to 8db m thb National Coubt. �A prohibition by a state that a corporation of another state shall not do business therein, does not prevent such corporation from suing in a national court in the former state, because a state caunot prevent a foreign corporation from suing in such tribunal. �In Equity. �E. E. Shattuck and Julîm Moreland, for plaîntiff. �Addison G. Gibbs and Edward Bingham, for defendants. �Deady, D. j. On October 19, 1870, the plaintif, at its office in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, issued a policy of insurance on the life of Moses Elliot for his own benefit, in the sum of $8,000, and on November 29th of the same year said Moses assigned the same to his father, Jeremiah Elliott; and after- wards, on October 1, 1873, the plaintiff, upon the representa- tion of said Jeremiah that Moses was drowned on June 2i, 1871, pàid said policy to the former. �On September 30, 1879, this suit was brought to recover this money as having been obtained from the plaintiff by means of the false and fraudulent representations of the father that the son was dead, when in truth and in faet he ■was living, and to that end to subject certain property alleged to have been purchased by the former with the money so obtained of the plaintiff to the satisfaction of any decree �v.5,no.3 — 15 ����
