This case presents a question of the jurisdiction of the circuit court of the United States to entertain a suit brought by Mary B. Davis, defendant in error, plaintiff below, against the Commercial Mutual Accident Company, plaintiff in error, defendant below. The case comes here upon a certificate involving the question whether the defendant company was duly served with process. The circuit court found that the service of summons was valid and sufficient to give it jurisdiction, and overruled a motion to set aside the service and dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.
The suit was commenced by Mary B. Davis in the circuit court of Howard county, Missouri, and was removed to the circuit court of the United States for the central division of western Missouri by the defendant, a Pennsylvania corporation. The company made no appearance in the court below or in the state court, except for the purpose of raising the question of jurisdiction, and removing the case to the Federal court. Such proceedings did not amount to a general appearance in the suit. Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U.S. 518, 39 L. ed. 517, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 559; Wabash Western R. Co. v. Brow, 164 U.S. 271, 41 L. ed. 431, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 126.
The record contains a bill of exceptions, setting forth the testimony upon the question of jurisdiction. It appears that A. F. Davis, husband of the plaintiff, held a policy in the defendant company, issued August 6, 1896, in the sum of $5,000, insuring against accidental death. On December 31, 1906, he received a gunshot wound, from which he died on the 4th of January, 1907. On January 7th, 1907, the insurance company was notified of the death. On January 14 and 15 one Dr. Mason, of Chicago, went to the city of Fayette, Missouri, the home of the plaintiff, and there made an investigation of the cause of death in defendant's behalf, and demanded an inspection of the body of the deceased, which demand was refused. Some correspondence ensued between the plaintiff and the defendant company, and, on February 20, a letter was written, signed by the plaintiff, which letter contained, among other things, the following:
'However, if you think it is right, you may send someone here to examine the body for you. Can't you also send someone authorized who could settle the claim here if your doctor found everything as reported, as most all of the claims have been paid, and I am very anxious to have the balance settled as soon as possible.
'Then, too, if I should want to compromise the claim in lieu of an examination, your agent would have power to settle it without any delay. Please let me know just when you will send someone, as I am thinking of going to St. Louis for a few days, and would like to be here when he comes, so let me know several days in advance.'
To this letter the company replied by a letter written by its secretary at the Philadelphia office, that it would have its medical representative in Fayette with authority to make an adjustment. Afterwards, on February 27, Dr. Mason went to Fayette, having received a written letter of authority from the company, authorizing him to act on behalf of the company in the examination of the body of the deceased, which letter also authorized him to adjust the claim.
The testimony is not altogether in harmony as to what occurred at the meeting of February 27. It does appear that the representative of the plaintiff and Dr. Mason met and conferred upon the matter of compromising the claim, and that afterwards an offer was made by the plaintiff's representatives to proceed with an examination of the body of the deceased. Dr. Mason declined this offer until he could have another physician present; and, after some negotiation, a deputy sheriff appeared and served process upon Dr. Mason as agent of the company, upon a petition which had been prepared before his arrival, and which was filed in the case subsequently removed to the Federal court. There is also testimony tending to show that a physician was present, who was ready to assist in the examination of the body as a representative of the plaintiff.
The grounds of objection to the service in the case may be summarized to be: First, that Mason was not a person authorized to receive service of process on defendant's behalf; second, that, at the time the service was attempted, the defendant company was not engaged in the transaction of business in the state of Missouri; third, that Dr. Mason was enticed into the state of Missouri by the trick and device of the plaintiff; fourth, that the return of service did not disclose a valid service under the laws of the United States nor of the state of Missouri.