Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/98

■84 FEDBBAL EBPOBTEB. �power of attomey shall be revoked until after a like power has been given to some competent person, and a copy thereof flled as aforesaid." �In March, 1878, the plaintiff, who was then the administratrix upon Lewis EUis' estais, commenced suit against the defendant in the circuit court of the city of Predericksburg upon said policy. Service of said suit was made upon said Edrington alone. No ap- pearance was made by the defendant. Damages were assessed by a jury against the defendant in the sum of $2,200, and interest from, October 6, 1877. No other service was made. Edrington had no authority from the defendant to accept service, and was not its attor- ney or agent, unless made so by the act of 1877. �It is admitted that the policy became eitinguished by the non-pay- ment of premiums in 1861, and that no action would lie for the amount insured thereon, (Ins. Co. y. Statham, 93 U. S. 24;) and that the agenoy of Little was, under the circumstances heretofore stated, terminated by the breaking out of the war. Ins. Co. v. Davis, 95 U. S. 425. But it is insisted that the defendant is bound by the judgment of the Virginia court. The plaintiff 's argument is that, by virtue of the act of 1856, the defendant entered into a contract with the state of Virginia, and with each of the policy-holders, to l^eep an agent in the state to accept process; that although this con- tract was suspended during the war, it revived thereafter, notwith- standing the defendant had ceased to do business within the state, and had abandoned the idea of re-engaging in business, beoause there was or might be a liability upon it for the equitable value of policies whioh had become forfeited by the war, with interest, and that the defendant failing to appoint an agent, the state of Virginia had the right to direct how service of process should be made, and that such service so made would be yalid. �' Assuming that each proposition is true, but not admitting the truth of either as stated, it remains to be shown that Virginia has directed how process should be seryed within the state upon a foreign corpo- ration whioh had, long before the date of the supposed direction, ceased .±0 do business therein. �It is said that the state gave such direction by the act of 1877. It seems tome plain that the actof 1877 is prospective, and relates only to the companies which were, at the time of the passage of the act, engaged in the business of making or renewing contraots of Insurance within the state, or should thereafter engage in such business. "Stat- utes are to be considered prospective, unless the language is ex- pressly to the contrary, or there is a necessary implication to that ��� �