472 PBDBBAL EEPORTKR. �Insurance CoMPANrKs— Noît-Compltance wiïh Statute of State — Vamditt op PoLicrBS. — By failing to comply with the requirements of the Arkansaa statuts, prescribing the terms upon which Insurance com- panies of other states may do business in that state, such companies and their agents and brokers render themselves liable to the penalties denounced by the act, but such failure does not afifect the validity of the policies issued by them, or in any manner operate to the prejudice of the policy holder. �Same — Suit on Policy — Pkgcess — Sbevice on State Auditor — Ks- TOPPEL. — A statute of Arkansas provides that no insurance compan\-, not of that state, shall do business in the state until it has liied with tiie auditor a stipulation in writing agreeing that legal process aiïecting t!ie Company, served on the auditor of state, shall have the same elïecl as if served personally on the company. Held, that if an insurance company does business in the state, and issues policies to citizens of the state i)n property within the state, that in a suit on such a policy service of pro- cess on the auditor was good personal service on the company, aUiiouL;li the written stipulation to that effect was not flled with the auditor ; that i n such case the company waa estopped to say that it had not flled the stip- ulation and had not assented to such service. �This action was brought to recover for an alleged loss on a fire policy. The eomplaint alleged the plaintifï was a citi- zen of the state of Arkansas, and that the defendant was a corporation created by the laws of the state of Louisiana and a citizen of that state "doing business and taking risks of insurance in the state of Arkansas, " and that plaintiff paid the premium and the defendant issued to him the policy in suit. The property insured was then contained and during the life of the policy was to be kept in a building situated in the city of Helena, Arkansas, and that the loss occurred there. Summons was issued and duly served on the auditor of state, under section 3561 of Gantt's Digest, as amended by act of February 27, 1875. �The defendant entered a special appearance, and filed the following plea, not sworn to: "Now, on this day cornes the defendant, the Teutonic Insurance Company, and, without entering their appearance herein, say, by way of abatement of the writ in this behalf, that they never had any agent in tlùs state; they never had any certificate of authority, as provided for by the act of February 27, 1875 ; that they never, in any manner, complied with the laws of the state of Arkansas pro- viding for the duties and liabilities of foreign insurance com- ��� �
