Imperial, Consolidated, Mining Co., Roach v. 224 In re Dillon..... 561 30 In re South Mountain Con. Mining Co....... J. Jupiter Mining Co. v. Bodie Con. Mining Co......... 96 Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Elliott... Nunez, Mora v.. 0. Odeneal, United States v.. Orange National Bank v. Traver.. Oregon and Cal. R. R. Co., Holmes v.. 17 455 451 210 380 122 P. PAGE Pacific R. M. Co. v. Dayton, S. & G. R. Ry. Co..... 61 Palmer, Huntington v..... 355 Perine, California Artificial Stone Paving Co. v.. 190 Ping-On, The..... 483 Portland v. Oregonian Railway Co.... 122 San Jacinto Tin Co., Manning v.. 498 477 418 San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co...... 517 Slavonian Mining Co. v. Vacavich.. 217 South Mountain Con. Mining Co., In re. 30 Southern Pacific R. R. Co., San Mateo County v...... 517 DECISIONS OF THE CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE Co. v. CIRCUIT COURT, DISTRICT OF OREGON. 1. CONTRACT, WHERE MADE.-A policy was issued from the office of the plaintiff, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, upon the life of M. E., in Portland, Oregon, and forwarded to the local agent there for delivery, containing a clause to the effect that the policy was not binding upon the company until countersigned and delivered there and the premium paid accordingly: Held, that the contract was completed in Oregon, that its validity must be determined by the laws of Oregon, and that the plaintiff being then prohibited from doing business in Oregon, the contract was null and void. 2. MONEY OBTAINED BY FRAUD.-J. E., the assignee of the aforesaid policy, obtained from the plaintiff thereon, the sum of seven thousand nine hundred and thirty-one dollars and ninety-seven cents, upon the false and fraudulent representation that the assured was dead: Held, that notwithstanding the illegality of the contract of insurance, the plaintiff might maintain a suit against J. E. to recover the money so fraudulently obtained by him. 3. CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE-RIGHT OF, TO SUE IN THE NATIONAL COURT.-A prohibition by a state that a corporation of another state shall not do business therein, does not prevent such corporation from suing in a national court in the former state, because a state cannot prevent a foreign corporation from suing in such tribunal. Before DEADY, District Judge. ON October 19, 1870, the plaintiff, at its office in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, issued a policy of insurance on the life of |