¶1It was essential to the validity of the contract of insurance, which was the consideration of this note, that the insurance company should previously have complied with the provisions of the statutes of this commonwealth. As it is admitted that a compliance with these provisions was denied in the answer, neither the company nor their treasurer, being the payees named in the note, can maintain this action, without proof of such compliance. If the plaintiff were a bona fide holder, without notice, the rule would be different, and a compliance with the requisitions of the statutes might be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Atlantic Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Fitzpatrick, 2 Gray, 281. Williams v. Cheney, ante, 220, 222. Exceptions overruled.
69 Mass. 500
Jones v. Smith
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided September 15, 1855
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1855-09-15
Action of contract by the treasurer of the Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company, a corporation incorporated by the laws of New Hampshire, and doing business at Concord in that state, against the holder of a policy issued by them, to recover an assessment upon a deposit note, whereby the defendant promised “to pay said company or their treasurer for the time being, the sum of seventy one dollars, in such portions and at such time or times as the directors of said company may…
Decided 1855-09-15