American Equitable Assur. Co. of N. Y. v. Gold, 459

Citation249 N.C. 461,106 S.E.2d 875
Decision Date28 January 1959
Docket NumberNo. 459,459
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesAMERICAN EQUITABLE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Great American Insurance Company, Hartford Fire Insurance Company, The Continental Insurance Company; and Virginia Fire and Marine Insurance Company, v. Charles F. GOLD, Commissioner of Insurance, Henry L. Bridges, I. Miller Warren, Charles F. Gold, Berry C. Gibson and Curtis H. Flanagan, Constituting the Board of Trustees of the North Carolina Firemen's Pension Fund, The North Carolina Firemen's Assoclation, C. R. Puryear and Ray E. Scott. HARDWARE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE CAROLINAS, Inc., v. Charles F. GOLD, Commissioner of Insurance, Henry L. Bridges, I. Miller Warren, Charles F. Gold, Berry C. Gibson and Curtis H. Flanagan, Constituting the Board of Trustees of the North Carolina Firemen's Pension Fund, The North Carolina Firemen's Association, C. R. Puryear and Ray E. Scott.

Allen & Hipp and Joyner & Howison, Raleigh, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Ehringhaus & Ellis, Raleigh, Malcolm B. Seawell, Atty. Gen., and Lucius W. Pullen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants-appellees.

RODMAN, Justice.

Plaintiffs assert the statute in question violates both the State and Federal Constitutions in that it levies a tax not uniform in its application and denies to them the equal protection and due process of law.

When called upon to pass on the constitutionality of a statute, it is assumed that the Legislature has not trespassed on forbidden territory delineated by the people by constitutional restrictions. Every presumption favors the validity of a statute. It will not be declared invalid unless its unconstitutionality be determined beyond reasonable doubt. These principles have been enunciated in a multitude of cases. Recent statements to that effect are made in City of Greensboro v. Wall, 247 N.C. 516, 101 S.E.2d 413; Roller v. Allen, 245 N.C. 516, 96 S.E.2d 851; Wilson v. City of High Point, 238 N.C. 14, 76 S.E.2d 546; Board of Managers of James Walker Memorial Hospital of Wilmington v. City of Wilmington, 237 N.C. 179, 74 S.E.2d 749; Nash v. Town of Tarboro, 227 N.C. 283, 42 S.E.2d 209; Nesbitt v. Gill, 227 N.C. 174, 41 S.E.2d 646; E. B. Ficklen Tobacco Co. v. Maxwell, 214 N.C. 367, 199 S.E. 405. In reaching our decision in the present case we are mindful of the principle declared in those cases.

While several reasons are assigned to support the assertion of invalidity, we find it necessary to pass on only one, i. e.. Does sec. 1 1/2 of the Act, reading 'Provided, nothing in this Act shall be construed to include Farmers Mutual Fire Insurance Associations,' destroy the uniformity of the tax levied by the Act and deprive plaintiffs of the equal protection and due process of law?

'Taxes on property shall be uniform as to each class of property taxed. Taxes shall be levied only for public purposes, and every act levying a tax shall state the object to which it is to be applied. The General Assembly may also tax trades, professions, franchises, and incomes * * *' N.C.Constitution, Art. V. sec. 3.

Literally, the language used restricts uniformity to taxes on property, but an unbroken line of decisions has construed the rule of uniformity required by the Constitution to apply equally to the taxes authorized by the last quoted sentence. C. D. Kenny Co. v. Town of Brevard, 217 N.C. 269, 7 S.E.2d 542; Leonard v. Maxwell, 216 N.C. 89, 3 S.E.2d 316; Hilton v. Harris, 207 N.C. 465, 177 S.E. 411; Roach v. City of Durham, 204 N.C. 587, 169 S.E. 149; Clark v. Maxwell, 197 N.C. 604, 150 S.E. 190, affirmed 282 U.S. 811, 51 S.Ct. 211, 75 L.Ed 726; Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company v. Doughton, 196 N.C. 145, 144 S.E. 701; State v. Williams, 158 N.C. 610, 73 S.E. 1000, 40 L.R.A., N.S., 279; Worth v. Raleigh & G. R. Co., 89 N.C. 301; Gatlin v. Town of Tarboro, 78 N.C. 119.

An examination of the statute is necessary to ascertain legislative purpose and the means used to accomplish that purpose. Art. 3 is directed to be included in chapter 118 of the General Statutes. The statute adds secs. 18 to 36 inclusive to that chapter. For convenience we shall hereafter refer to those portions of the statute necessary for determination of this case by the section numbers directed to be used in the General Statutes.

Sec. 18 establishes a State fund to be known as the North Carolina Firemen's Pension Fund 'to provide pension allowances and other benefits for eligible firemen in the State who elect to become members * * *.'

This fund is composed of (a) contributions by firemen, G.S. § 118-24, and (b) taxes as provided by G.S. § 118-20. Sec. 20 reads: 'Every fire insurance company, corporation or association as aforesaid shall, within 75 days from December thirty-first of each year, deliver and pay over to the State Insurance Commissioner the sum of one dollar ($1.00) out of and from every one hundred dollars ($100.00), and at that rate, upon the amount of all premiums written on fire and lightning policies covering property in North Carolina located in areas where fire protection is available during the year ending December thirty-first in each year, or such portion of each year as said company, corporation or association shall have done business, provided, that the premium on fire and lightning policies covering property in North Carolina issued by said fire insurance company, corporation or association shall be increased by the amount of said payment. All money so paid shall be paid over by the Insurance Commissioner to the State Treasurer as custodian of the North Carolina Firemen's Pension Fund.'

For the purpose of ascertaining the amount of taxes payable to the Pension Fund, G.S. § 118-19 requires every fire insurance company to file with the Insurance Commissioner 'a just and true account of all premiums collected and received from all fire insurance business done in North Carolina during the year ending December thirty-first * * *'

Where did the Legislature place the burden of the tax imposed? The answer is to be found in the section which imposes the tax. Sec. 20 does two things: First it prescribes the measuring rod to determine the amount of the tax to be paid. It is clear that amount is one per cent of the premium. The word 'premium,' when used in connection with insurance, has a well-defined meaning. It is 'the consideration paid, whether in money or otherwise, for contract of insurance. ' Webster's New Int. Dict., 2d ed. 'Broadly defined, insurance is a contract by which one party, for a compensation called the premium, assumes particular risks of the other party and promises to pay to him or his nominee a certain or ascertainable sum of money on a specified contingency. ' State ex rel. Duffy v. Western Auto Supply Co., 134 Ohio St. 163, 16 N.E.2d 256, 258, 119 A.L.R. 1236.

Having fixed the yardstick with which to measure the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • State v. Tutt
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • July 19, 2005
    ...beyond a reasonable doubt. Turner v. Reidsville, 224 N.C. 42, 46, 29 S.E.2d 211, 214 (1944); American Equitable Assurance Co. of N.Y. v. Gold, 249 N.C. 461, 463, 106 S.E.2d 875, 876 (1959) ("Every presumption favors the validity of a statute. It will not be declared invalid unless its uncon......
  • Baker v. Martin
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • December 6, 1991
    ...reasonable doubt." Gardner v. Reidsville, 269 N.C. 581, 595, 153 S.E.2d 139, 150 (1967), quoting Assurance Co. v. Gold, Comr. of Insurance, 249 N.C. 461, 463, 106 S.E.2d 875, 876 (1959). See also Mitchell v. Financing Authority, 273 N.C. 137, 159 S.E.2d 745 (1968); State v. Matthews, 270 N.......
  • Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 457
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • June 15, 1962
    ...dependent in amount upon age and service. That act was, in January 1959, held unconstitutional. American Equitable Assurance Co. v. Gold, Comr. of Insurance, 249 N.C. 461, 106 S.E.2d 875. Plaintiffs who attacked the 1957 statute based their claim of invalidity in part on grounds on which pl......
  • Lenoir Finance Co. v. Currie, 449
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • March 1, 1961
    ...repeated judicial interpretations extend this requirement to license, franchise, and other forms of taxation. American Equitable Assurance Co. v. Gold, 249 N.C. 461, 106 S.E.2d 875; Roach v. City of Durham, 204 N.C. 587, 169 S.E. 149; State v. Stevenson, 109 N.C. 730, 14 S.E. 385; Gatlin v.......
  • 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