Business Men's League v. Waddill

• Decision Date: 01 April 1898
• Citation: 45 S.W. 262,143 Mo. 495
• Parties: BUSINESS MEN'S LEAGUE et al. v. WADDILL.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

45 S.W. 262

143 Mo. 495

BUSINESS MEN'S LEAGUE et al. v. WADDILL.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

April 1, 1898.

INJUNCTION — UNIFORM INSURANCE POLICY.

Suit to enjoin the superintendent of insurance from approving a uniform policy of insurance, under Act March 18, 1895, claimed to be unconstitutional as delegating legislative

power to him, cannot be maintained; it being claimed, not that he is about to interfere directly with any contract which plaintiffs have made, or are intending to make, but that he is about to approve a form of policy, in case of which the insurance companies will refuse to issue any other kind of policy, by which conduct of the companies, under the guise of obedience to said act, plaintiffs may be unable to make contracts of insurance, which they might otherwise make.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court.

Suit by the Business Men's League and others against James R. Waddill. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

Fyke, Yates & Fyke, for appellant. Orr, Christie, Bates & Bruce, for respondents.

WILLIAMS, J.

Plaintiffs seek an injunction to prevent the superintendent of the insurance department from approving, under the act of March 18, 1895 (Acts 1895, p. 194) a uniform policy of insurance, to be used, to the exclusion of all other forms, by the fire insurance companies doing business in this state. It is claimed that said act attempts to delegate legislative powers to said superintendent, and is, therefore, unconstitutional and void. The petition charges that defendant, who was such superintendent at the time this suit was begun, was about to approve and promulgate, by authority of said act, a form of policy to be used to the exclusion of all others by the fire insurance companies doing business in Missouri; that, when so approved, he would forthwith officially advise all such companies, or "indicate to them expressly or by necessary implication, that from and after the 1st day of January, 1896, it would be unlawful for them, and each of them, to issue in this state any fire or lightning policy which did not embrace, and in all respects conform to, the said exclusive form which the said superintendent was so threatening to approve and promulgate." It is alleged that the effect of such action will be to force, induce, or enable such companies to employ said form, to the exclusion of all others, under color of lawful authority or legal requirement, and thus impose upon plaintiffs and all others similarly situated harsh, unfair, and unjust conditions in their contracts of insurance, and cause them serious and substantial damages. Plaintiffs are alleged, in the petition, to be owners of property of great value in the city of St. Louis. Some of them are wholesale merchants, who carry large stocks, and are in the habit of keeping the same insured. It is further stated that plaintiffs had been accustomed to make contracts of insurance containing such terms and conditions as their situation demanded, and that they had the right so to do. It is also alleged that the threatened...