
    Handy v. Insurance Company.
    1. A policy of marine insurance, which contained a stipulation that in case of loss or misfortune the insurer would contribute ratably to expenses incurred by the assured or their agents in and about the recovery of the insured cargo, was issued by a corporation of the state of Connecticut, also doing business in the state of Ohio. The cargo was sunk in waters of the state of Michigan, and labor was expended in efforts to recover it. Held, that the breach of such stipulation on the part of the insurer constitutes a cause of action' against the company, cognizable by the courts of this state.
    2. After the filing of a petition on such cause of action and the issuing of a summons, which was returned served on the defendant by delivering a true and attested copy on an agent of the defendant, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the action “for the reason that this court has no jurisdiction of the case, it appearing from the petition on file that said defendant is a foreign insurance company, and that no part of the alleged cause of action arose in this state.” Held, that the filing of such motion was a voluntary appearance in the action and a waiver of any defect in the service of the summons.
    
      Error to the District Court of Cuyahoga County.
    The original action was brought in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga county, by plaintiffs in error, owners of a schooner, which, with its cargo of iron ore owned by the Saginaw Mining Company, was lost in Lake Michigan, state of Michigan, on the 17th of October, 1873, to recover from the defendant, a corporation of the state of Connecticut, on a marine insurance poliey issued to the owners of the cargo, at Marquette in the state of Michigan, contribution, for expenses incurred, in efforts to save the sunken cargo, by the owners of the schoo^ ner, to whom the owner of the cargo had assigned its rights under the following stipulation contained in the policy of insurance:
    “And in case of any loss or misfortune, it shall be lawful and necessary to and for the assured or insurer, their agents, factors, servants and assigns, to sue, labor and travel for, in and about the defense, safeguard and recovery of the said goods and merchandise, or any part thereof, without prejudice to this insurance ; nor shall the acts of the insured or insurers, in recovering, saving and preserving the property insured, in case of disaster, be considered a waiver or an acceptance of an abandonment, nor as affirming or denying any liability, under this policy, but such acts shall be considered as done for the benefit of all concerned, without prejudice to the rights of either party.
    “ To the charges whereof the said company will contribute in such proportion as the sum herein insured bears to the whole value of the property so insured ; having been paid the consideration for this insurance by the assured at and after the rate and premium as hereon indorsed.”
    A summons was issued in the case, which was returned as served on the defendant “ by delivering to C. C. Carlton, agent of said company, a true and attested copy thereof.”
    After the rule day for answer, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the action “ for the reason that this court has no jurisdiction of the case, it appearing from the petition on file that said defendant is a foreign insurance company and that no part of the alleged cause of action arose in this state.” This motion being overruled, defendant excepted, and thereupon filed a de- . murrer to the petition, upon the ground, among others, “ that the court had no jurisdiction of the person of the defendant.” The demurrer being overruled, the defendant answered, and upon the trial, judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs.
    The defendant afterwards filed a petition in error in the district court, alleging, among other matters, that the court of common pleas had erred in overruling the motion to dismiss the action, and in overruling the demurrer to the petition.
    "Without considering other matters assigned for error, the district court reversed the judgment of the common pleas, upon the ground that the motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, and the demurrer alleging want of jurisdiction of the person of defendant, were improperly overruled.
    It is now sought to reverse this judgment of reversal.
    
      Daniel E. Williamson, for plaintiff in error:
    The motion Was not to quash or set aside the summons, but to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, because the cause of action did not arise in this state.
    The filing of this motion to dismiss was itself the entry of an appearance. Benton v. Insurance Co., 26 Ohio St. 467; Shafer v. Waldo, 7 Ohio St. 309; Evans v. Iles, 7 Ohio St. 233.
    No objection was made to the form of service, or to want of service on the proper agent.
    The jurisdiction is maintainable upon either one of two grounds, viz.: that the defendant is a foreign corporation, and that it is foreign insurance company. Insurance Co. v. French, 18 How. 404; Code, § 52; Express Co. v. Johnson, 17 Ohio St. 641.
    A foreign insurance company may be sued in this state wherever an agent may be found, without regard to the residence of the parties, the place-of the loss, or the place where the policy was issued.
    
      R. & E. T. Waite, and H. L. Terrell, for defendant in error:
    
      The question presented is this: Can a party, who does not appear to be a resident of Ohio, bring a suit, in the court of common pleas of any county in this state, against a foreign insurance company which has so far complied with the laws of our state as to be authorized to do an insurance business within the state, to recover an amount claimed to be due the plaintiff from the company, under the provisions of its policy of insurance issued in another state to a resident of that state, upon property which was never in this state, and under which a loss had occurred and been settled for without the state, and acquire jurisdiction by the mere service of the summons upon the local agent of the company in the county where the petition is filed? See section 20 of the act of April 27, 1872, as amended April 24, 1873 (Sayler’s Stat. 2975).
    The laws of Ohio are for the protection and government of its own citizens and those doing business within the state; not for residents of other states in their contracts made out of the state.
    There was no waiver. Evans v. Iles, 7 Ohio St. 233; Marsden v. Soper, 11 Ohio St. 503; Fee v. Big Sand Iron Co., 13 Ohio St. 563.
   McIlvaine, J.

No objection is made to the jurisdiction of the court of common pleas over the person of defendant on the ground that service of summons was not made upon a “ managing agent,” as authorized by section 68 of the civil code of 1853, in force at the time the action was brought: And, indeed, if no summons had been issued in the case, the voluntary appearance of the defendant for the purpose of submitting to the court the sufficiency of the petition in its statement of the cause of action, which was done by the motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, on the ground stated in the motion, would have constituted a waiver of the summons, as well as the service thereof. “ The voluntary appearance of the defendant is equivalent to service ” of a summons. Section 65. True, the voluntary appearance of a defendant for the sole purpose of objecting to the mode or manner of service is not within the rule of this section ; such, however, was not the purpose of the defendant in making the motion in this ease, but the motion, as expressed, involved the merits of the action as stated in the petition. The true ground of objection as raised, first by the motion, and afterwards by the demurrer, was that the defendant, upon the facts stated in the petition, was not liable to be sued in that court, for the reason that the cause of action, or any part of it, did not arise in this state, nor was the defendant a corporation of this state.

It is not claimed that courts of this state may not exercise jurisdiction over foreign corporations; but it is contended, 1st. That jurisdiction over foreign corporations can be exercised by courts of this state only in cases where the cause of action, or some part of it, arose in this state; and, 2d. That foreign insurance corporations can be sued in this state only in the county where the cause of action, or some part thereof, ■•arose.

Power to hear and determine a controversy is jurisdiction, and it is complete when both the subject matter of the controversy and the parties to it are properly before the court. In determining whether a given subject matter is within the jurisdiction of a court, regard to the parties is not involved. The subject matter of the original action was a contract alleged to have been broken by defendant. There is no question but that the court of common pleas had jurisdiction of this subject matter, without regard to the place where the contract was made or where it was violated. The point made by the defendant is, that the court, upon the facts stated in the petition, had no power to issue its process against the defendant, or even after a voluntary appearance, to proceed to render judgment against it upon the cause of action stated in the petition.

The general jurisdiction of the court of common pleas, over the person of litigants, is not confined to residents or natural persons; non-residents of the state and foreign corporations are as much subject to its jurisdiction as are residents and domestic corporations. Except in actions of a local nature, our courts are open to all who may seek relief therein, against any one who can be reached by its process. We know of no principle that will exempt a foreign corporation, which voluntarily comes into this state, from liability to answer any complaint which may be preferred against it in the courts of the state, that would not exonerate natural persons under like circumstances.

The county in which actions are to be brought, as well as the mode of acquiring jurisdiction by notice to defendants, is regulated by statute. Among other provisions on this subject, section 52 of the code of 1853 provided that, “an action . . . against a non-resident of this state or a foreign corporation, may be brought in any county in which there may be property of, or debts owing to, said defendant, or where said defendant may be found : but if said defendant be á foreign insurance company, the action may be brought in any county where the cause, or some part thereof, arose.” The general rule here declared has no reference to actions upon causes arising in this state. No matter where the cause arose, if the subject matter be within the jurisdiction of the court. Nor is the rule confined to corporations other than insurance companies. Any foreign corporation which maybe found in this state, maybe sued in any county of this state, in any court having jurisdiction of the subject matter of the suit. And the defendant in error, having voluntarily appeared in the action in the court of common pleas, is not in position to allege that it was not found in this state and in the county where the action was brought. .

Nor is the claim of the defendant in error, that being a foreign insurance corporation under the last clause in the section above quoted, it was liable to suit in this state only in the county where the cause of action or some part of it arose. This clause was intended to give an additional remedy against ‘ foreign insurance companies doing business in this state; namely ? to make them liable to actions in-the county where the causes of action arose, although they might not have property or debts due in such county, or might not even be found in such county.

It was alleged in the petition below, that the defendant was an insurance corporation of the state of Connecticut, doing business in the state of Ohio; and much has been said in argument, in relation to section 20 of the act of April 27, 1872, regulating foreign insurance companies, ás amended April 24, 1873 (70 Ohio L. 147), and among other things it is contended by the defendant that the process authorized by said section to be acknowledged by or served upon any agent of a foreign insurance company doing business in this state, is confined to process in actions founded upon causes of action accruing in this state. "Whether this be so or not, we -deem to be immaterial in the ease before us, as we have based our conclusion that the court of common pleas had jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, not upon the fact of service of process on an agent, but upon the voluntary appearance of the defendant in the action. Judgment reversed and cause remanded to the district court for further hearing upon the petition in error.  