Allgeyer v. State of Louisiana

Decision Date01 March 1897
Docket NumberNo. 446,446
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

The legislature of Louisiana, in the year 1894, passed an act known as Act No. 66 of the acts of that year. It is entitled 'An act to prevent persons, corporations or firms from dealing with marine insurance companies that have not complied with law.'

The act reads as follows: 'Be it enacted by the general assembly of the state of Louisiana, that any person, firm or corporation who shall fill up, sign or issue in this state any certificate of insurance under an open marine policy, or who in any manner whatever does any act in this state to effect for himself, or for another, insurance on property then in this state, in any marine insurance company which has not complied in all respects with the laws of this state, shall be subject to a fine of one thousand dollars for each offense, which shall be sued for in any competent court by the attorney general for the benefit of the charity hospitals in New Orleans and Shreveport.'

By reason of the provisions of this act, the state of Louisiana on the 21st of December, 1894, filed its petition in one of the courts of first instance for the parish of Orleans, and alleged, in substance, that the defendants, E. Allgeyer & Co., had violated the statute by mailing in New Orleans a letter of advice or certificate of marine insurance on the 27th of October, 1894, to the Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company of New York, advising that company of the shipment of 100 bales of cotton to foreign ports in accordance with the terms of an open marine policy, etc. The state sought to recover for three violations of the act the sum of $3,000.

The defendants filed an answer, in which, among other things, they averred that the above-named act was unconstitutional, in that it deprived them of their property without due process of law, and denied them the equal protection of the laws, in violation of the constitution of the state of Louisiana and also of the constitution of the United States. They also set up that the business concerning which defendants were sought to be made liable, and the contracts made in reference to such business, were beyond the jurisdiction of the state of Louisiana, and that the defendants were not amendable to any penalties imposed by its laws; that the contracts of insurance made by defendants were made with an insurance company in the state of New York, where the premiums were paid, and where the losses thereunder, if any, were also to be paid; that the contracts were New York contracts, and that under the constitution of the United States the defendants had the right to do and perform any act or acts within the state of Louisiana which might be necessary and proper for the execution of those contracts; and that, in so far as Act No. 66 of the general assembly of the state of Louisiana of the year 1894 might be construed to prevent or interfere with the execution of such contracts, the same was unconstitutional, and in violation of the constitution of both the state of Louisiana and the United States.

The case was tried upon an agreed statement of facts, as follows: The Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company is a corporation, created by the laws of the state of New York and domiciled and carrying on business in that state, and the defendants made a contract with that company for an open policy of marine insurance for $200,000, on account of themselves, and to cover cotton in bales purchased and shipped by them on which drafts might be drawn for the purchaser upon 'Whom it might Concern.' By the terms of the policy, among other things, it was stated: 'Shipments applicable to this policy, to be reported to this company by mail or telegraph the day purchased, warranted not to cover cotton in charge of carriers on shore or during inland transportation. No risk is to be insured by this policy until a letter signed by _____, and addressed to the president of this company, detailing the name of the vessel, particulars of the shipment, with description of the property and amount to be insured, is deposited in the post office at _____, which must be done while the property is in good safety, and in all cases prior to the departure of the risk from _____; a duplicate of such letter to be sent by the following mail. A new and separate policy to be issued for each risk, the premium on which is to be paid in cash upon the delivery of such policy in New York to E. Allgeyer & Company.'

The Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company is engaged in the business of marine insurance, and has appointed no agent in the state of Louisiana, and has not complied with the conditions required by the laws of that state for the doing of business within the same by insurance companies incorporated and domiciled out of the state.

On the 23d of October, 1894, the defendants mailed to that company a communication, stating insurance was wanted by defendants for account of same (the open policy); loss, if any, payable at Paris, in French currency, etc., for $3,400 on 100 bales of cotton, which, at the time of the communication, were within the state of Louisiana. The premiums to be paid under the contract of insurance, and the loss or losses under the same, were payable in the city of New York, the premiums being remitted by the defendants from New Orleans by exchange.

Defendants are exporters of cotton from the port of New Orleans to ports in Great Britain and on the continent of Europe. They sell cotton in New Orleans to purchasers at said ports. For the price of every sale of cotton made by them they, in accordance with the general custom of business, draw a bill of exchange against the purchaser, attaching to the same the bill of lading for the cotton and an order on the Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company for a new and separate policy of insurance, spoken of in the open policy, and the form of the said order is as follows:

'Attached to draft No. ___ on _____, from E. Allgeyer & Co., New Orleans, 189, to Atlantic Mutual Ins. Co., New York.

'Marks and numbers, ___.

'Please deliver to _____ or order special policy for- $_____ on _____ bales cotton, per _____, from New Orleans to _____.


'[Signed] E. Allgeyer & Co.,

'Per ________.'

This bill of exchange, with the bill of lading attached, is sometimes negotiated with banks in the city of New York; sometimes it is not negotiated at all, but forwarded direct for collection from the purchaser of the cotton. The bill of exchange, with bill of lading and order for insurance attached, in either case is sent from New Orleans first to New York, where, after its negotiation or before being forwarded from thence for collection, the order for insurance is presented to the Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company. Upon this showing the insurance company in New York issues and delivers to the holder of the exchange and bill of lading when the former has been negotiated, or to the agent of defendant when the exchange has not been negotiated, a new and a separate policy of insurance for the cotton, in accordance with the contract made with the defendants and evidenced by the policy above mentioned and described. This new and separate policy, when received, is attached to the bill of exchange. The exchange cannot be negotiated in New York, unless it is accompanied by both the bill of lading and order for insurance, and unless the new and separate policy issued by the company is attached to it the purchaser of the cotton is under no obligation to pay the bill drawn on him for the price of the cotton. The new and separate policy delivered to the holder of the exchange and bill of lading in New York, or to defendants' agent there, as the case may be, is for the benefit of the holder of the latter, or of defendants, according as the exchange has been negotiated or not. The holder of the exchange becomes the owner of the cotton covered by the bill of lading attached, and is the owner of the policy of insurance covering the same, in the event of a loss within the terms of the policy.

The business thus described is conducted as above by the general custom and agreement of all parties concerned.

The court of first instance before which the trial was had ordered that plaintiff's demand be rejected, and that judgment in favor of the defendants be given. An appeal was taken from that judgment to the supreme court of the state, which, after argument before it and due consideration, reversed the judgment of the court below, and gave judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $1,000, as for one violation of the statute, being the only one which was proved. State v. Allegeyer, 48 La. Ann. 104, 18 South. 904. The plaintiffs in error ask a review in this court of the judgment entered against them by directions of the supreme court of Louisiana.

Branch K. Miller, for plaintiffs in error.

M. J. Cunningham and E. Howard McCaleb, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice PECKHAM, after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the court.

There is no doubt of the power of the state to prohibit foreign insurance companies from doing business within its limits. The state can impose such conditions as it pleases upon the doing of any business by those companies within its borders, and unless the conditions be complied with the prohibition may be absolute. The cases upon this subject are cited in the opinion of the court in Hooper v. State of California, 155 U. S. 648, 15 Sup. Ct. 207.

A conditional prohibition in regard to foreign insurance compaines doing business within the state of Louisiana is to be found in article 236 of the constitution of that state, which reads as follows: 'No foreign corporation shall do any business in this state without having one or more known places of business and an authorized agent or agents in the state upon whom process may be served.'

It is not claimed in this suit that the Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company has violated this provision of ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
564 cases
  • BJRL v. State of Utah
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Utah
    • January 28, 1987
    ...of any modern language other than English invades the liberty guaranteed by Fourteenth Amendment); and Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 590-91, 17 S.Ct. 427, 431-32, 41 L.Ed. 832 (state citizen has a right to contract outside of the state for insurance on his 6 Id., 165 U.S. at 599, 97 ......
  • Sail'er Inn, Inc. v. Kirby
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • May 27, 1971
    ...& Fitzpatrick v. State of California, Supra, 71 Cal.2d 566, 579, 79 Cal.Rptr. 77, 456 P.2d 645; cf. Allgeyer v. Louisiana (1897) 165 U.S. 578, 589--590, 17 S.Ct. 427, 41 L.Ed. 832; Truax v. Raich, Supra, 239 U.S. 33, 41, 36 S.Ct. 7; Endler v. Schutzbank (1968) 68 Cal.2d 162, 169, fn. 4, 169......
  • Conservatorship of Valerie N.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • October 21, 1985
    ...he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling [and] to pursue any livelihood or avocation...." (Allgeyer v. Louisiana (1897) 165 U.S. 578, 589, 17 S.Ct. 427, 431, 41 L.Ed. 832; see also Grosjean v. American Press. Co. (1936) 297 U.S. 233, 244, 56 S.Ct. 444, 80 L.Ed. 660.) "Liberty m......
  • State Bd. of Dry Cleaners v. Thrift-D-Lux Cleaners
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • March 10, 1953 the Lochner and similar cases, such as Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161, 28 S.Ct. 277, 52 L.Ed. 436; Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 17 S.Ct. 427, 41 L.Ed. 832; and Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, 35 S.Ct. 240, 59 L.Ed. 441. 'This Court beginning at least as early as 1934, when t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
49 books & journal articles
  • Frederick Mark Gedicks, the United States
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory International Law Reviews No. 19-2, March 2005
    • Invalid date
    ...right of an individual to be "free in his person and in his power to contract in relation to his own labor"); Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 590 (1897). The Court construed the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting not only the right of the citizen to be free fr......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • The Path of Constitutional Law Suplemmentary Materials
    • January 1, 2007
    ...Allentown Mack Sales & Service, Inc. v. NLRB, 522 U.S. 359, 118 S.Ct. 818, 139 L.Ed.2d 797 (1998), 401 Allgeyer v. State of Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 17 S.Ct. 427, 41 L.Ed. 832 (1897), 296, 439, 968, 1238, Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus, 438 U.S. 234, 98 S.Ct. 2716, 57 L.Ed.2d 7......
  • Constitutional Challenges to the OSHA COVID-19 Vaccination Mandate
    • United States
    • The Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy No. 20-1, January 2022
    • January 1, 2022
    ...his place in the ranks of the army of his country and risk the chance of being shot down in its defense.” (citing Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 (1897))). 43. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cls. 11 (“[The Congress shall have Power] To declare War”), 12 (“[The Congress shall have Power] To ra......
  • Liberty interests in the preventive state: procedural due process and sex offender community notification laws.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 89 No. 4, June 1999
    • June 22, 1999
    ...Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923) ("[Liberty] denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint ...."); Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 589 (1897) (rejecting idea that liberty embraces "only the fight of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his (293) See ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT