denial under the Indiana Code of Civil Procedure was sufficient to put the plaintiffs upon proof of every fact that was essential in establishing their cause of action. Thornton's Indiana Code, art. 10, § 47; Title Pleadings; Rev. Stat. § 914.

The burden of proof was therefore upon the plaintiffs to show by what authority the Pennsylvania court could legally enter a personal judgment against a corporation which, according to the complaint itself, was a corporation of another State and was not alleged to have appeared in person or by an attorney of its own selection or to have been personally served with process. This burden the plaintiffs met by introducing in evidence a complete transcript of the record of the action in the Pennsylvania court from which it appeared: 1. That the defendant association was sued in the Pennsylvania court as a life insurance association of Indiana, was alleged to have been engaged in business in Pennsylvania, and was so engaged before and after the certificate of insurance in question was issued. 2. That the summons in that action was served on the Commissioner of Insurance for Pennsylvania, the defendant association not having appointed an agent in that Commonwealth upon whom process could be served nor having appeared by an attorney or representative. 3. That the Insurance Commissioner not having appeared in the action, judgment was taken against the defendant; and that is the judgment here in suit.

It was further made to appear in the present action that when the contract of insurance was executed, as well as before and since, it was provided by a statute of Pennsylvania, approved June 20, 1883, P. L. 134, amendatory of a previous statute of that Commonwealth establishing an Insurance Department, as follows: "No insurance company, not of this State, nor its agents, shall do business in this State until it has filed with the Insurance Commissioner of this State a written stipulation, duly authenticated by the company, agreeing that any legal process affecting the company served on the Insurance Commissioner, or the party designated by

him, or the agent specified by the company to receive service of process for said company, shall have the same effect as if served personally on the company within this State, and if such company should cease to maintain such agent in this State so designated, such process may thereafter be served on the Insurance Commissioner; but so long as any liability of the stipulating company to any resident of this State continues, such stipulation cannot be revoked or modified, except that a new one may be substituted, so as to require or dispense with the service at the office of said company within this State, and that such service of process according to this stipulation shall be sufficient personal service on the company. The term process shall be construed to mean and include any and every writ, rule, order, notice or decree, including any process of execution that may issue in or upon any action, suit or legal proceeding to which said company may be a party by themselves, or jointly with others, whether the same shall arise upon a policy of insurance or otherwise, by or in any other court of this Commonwealth having jurisdiction of the subject matter in controversy, and in default of an agent appointed by the company as aforesaid, then the officer so charged with the service of said process, shall, in like manner, deputize the sheriff, constable or other officer aforesaid of the county where the agent, if any there be, named by the Insurance Commissioner, may reside, to serve the same on him; and in default of such agent named by the Insurance Commissioner, as aforesaid, then in like manner to deputize the sheriff, constable or other officer as aforesaid of the county where the office of the Insurance Commissioner may be located, to serve the same on him, and each and every service so made, shall have the same force and effect to all intents and purposes as personal service on said company, in the county where said process issued;

The defendant association introduced no evidence. If looking alone at the pleadings in the Pennsylvania suit it be taken that at the time of the contract in question the

Indiana corporation was engaged in transacting, at least, some business in Pennsylvania, without having complied with the provisions of the above statute of that Commonwealth— that is, without having filed with the Insurance Commissioner the written stipulation required by that statute-still, plaintiffs cannot claim, on the present record, the full benefit of the general rule that the judgment of a court of superior authority, when proceeding within the general scope of its powers, is presumed to act rightly within its jurisdiction; that nothing shall be "intended to be out of the jurisdiction of a superior court but that which specially appears to be so." Peacock v. Bell, 1 Saunders, 73, 74. When a judgment of a court of superior authority is attacked collaterally for the want of jurisdiction, such a presumption cannot be indulged when it affirmatively appears from the pleadings or evidence that jurisdiction was wanting. We make this observation in view of the fact, distinctly shown by the plaintiffs themselves, that the policy of insurance and contract in question was, in fact, executed in Indiana and not in Pennsylvania. The policy sued on provided as one of its conditions that "for all purposes and in all cases this contract shall be deemed to have been made at the special office of this association in the State of Indiana, U. S. A., and all benefits and claims thereunder shall be payable at such office." Besides, to the complaint or petition in the Pennsylvania court was appended the following memorandum signed by the attorney for the plaintiffs: "The above contract of insurance is governed by the laws of the State of Indiana, the contract having been entered into at Indianapolis." And when the suit was brought in Pennsylvania the plaintiffs were confronted with the condition in the policy that "it is expressly understood and agreed that no action shall be maintained nor recovery had for any claims under or in virtue of this policy, after the lapse of six months from the death of said member," McNally. More than six months had elapsed after McNally's death before the suit was instituted in Pennsylvania. In order to obviate this difficulty the plaintiffs in

their declaration or statement in assumpsit, in the Pennsylvania court, alleged that the contract of insurance was governed by the laws of Indiana, "the contract having been entered into at Indianapolis, Indiana;" also, that "said policy of insurance and the contract touching the issuing the same were executed in the State of Indiana, in which State all provisions limiting liability on policies where suit is not brought within a certain time are held void and of no account." The plaintiffs cannot, therefore, be heard now to say that the contract was not, in fact, made in Indiana. What they alleged in the Pennsylvania suit precluded the idea that the contract of insurance was made in that Commonwealth. Indeed, if they had alleged that the business was transacted in Pennsylvania their action on the contract would have been defeated by the condition in the policy that no suit thereon could be brought on it after the expiration of six months from the death of the person whose life was insured.

But even if it be assumed that the insurance company was engaged in some business in Pennsylvania at the time the contract in question was made, it cannot be held that the company agreed that service of process upon the Insurance Commissioner of that Commonwealth would alone be sufficient to bring it into court in respect of all business transacted by it, no matter where, with or for the benefit of citizens of Pennsylvania. Undoubtedly, it was competent for Pennsylvania to declare that no insurance corporation should transact business within its limits without filing the written stipulation. specified in its statute. Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. 404; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168; Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 653, and authorities cited; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 177 U. S. 28, 45. It is equally true that if an insurance. corporation of another State transacts business in Pennsylvania without complying with its provisions it will be deemed to have assented to any valid terms prescribed by that Commonwealth as a condition of its right to do business there; and it will be estopped to say that it had not done what it should

have done in order that it might lawfully enter that Commonwealth and there exert its corporate powers. In Railroad Company v. Harris, 12 Wall. 65, 81, the question was as to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia of a suit against a corporation in Maryland, whose railroad entered the District with the consent of Congress. This court said: "It (the corporation) cannot migrate, but may exercise its authority in a foreign territory upon such conditions as may be prescribed by the law of the place. One of these conditions may be that it shall consent to be sued there. If it does business there it will be presumed to have assented and will be bound accordingly." This language was cited and approved in Railway Company v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270, 285. The same question was before the court in Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 U. S. 369, 376, and the principle announced in the Harris and Whitton cases was approved. In the Schollenberger case the Pennsylvania statute here in question was involved. To the same effect are the following cases: Ehrman v. Teutonia Ins. Co., 1 McCrary, 123, 129; Knapp, Stout & Co. v. Nat. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 30 Fed. Rep. 607; Berry v. Knights Templars' & Masons' Life Indemnity Co., 46 Fed. Rep. 439, 441, 442; Diamond Plate Glass Co. v. Minneapolis Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 55 Fed. Rep. 27; Stewart v. Harmon, 98 Fed. Rep. 190, 192.

Conceding then that by going into Pennsylvania, without first complying with its statute, the defendant association may be held to have assented to the service upon the Insurance Commissioner of process in a suit brought against it there in respect of business transacted by it in that Commonwealth,. such assent cannot properly be implied where it affirmatively appears, as it does here, that the business was not transacted in Pennsylvania. Indeed, the Pennsylvania statute, upon its face, is only directed against insurance companies who do business in that Commonwealth "in this State." While the highest considerations of public policy demand that an insurance corporation, entering a State in defiance of a statute