City of St. Louis v. Indep. Ins. Co. of Massachusetts

• Decision Date: 31 October 1870
• Citation: 47 Mo. 146
• Parties: CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Respondent, v. THE INDEPENDENT INSURANCE COMPANY OF MASSACHUSETTS, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

47 Mo. 146

CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Respondent,

v.THE INDEPENDENT INSURANCE COMPANY OF MASSACHUSETTS, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1870.

Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court.

Sharp & Broadhead, and Lubke and Thayer, for appellant.

There is no direct repeal of the law in force at the time of the passage of the amended charter of 1867, and repeals by implication are not favored by the courts. There must be a positive repugnance between the provisions of the new law and the old to work a repeal by implication, and even then the old law is only repealed to the extent of such repugnancy. (Wood v. United States, 16 Pet. 342; McCool v. Smith, 1 Block, 459.) The provision of the charter and that of the general law, relating to the case at bar, are consistent, and in nowise repugnant to each other.

McGinnis, and Woerner & Kehr, for respondent.

I. There is such repugnancy between the two acts that both of them can not stand together, and the prior act must give way. (Dwarris on Stat. 531; State v. Bender, 38 Mo. 450.)

II. The repeal is not only the legitimate and necessary result of the grant of power in the charters of 1866 and 1867, but is enacted in terms by the Legislature in both of the charters alluded to. (Sess. Acts 1866, p. 306, § 22.)

WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a proceeding against the defendant for violating a city ordinance in doing business without taking out a license in compliance therewith. The case is brought here for review from the St. Louis Criminal Court, where it was appealed from the Police Court. In both of the courts below the verdict was for the plaintiff.

The defendant is a foreign insurance company, and, having complied with the general laws of this State, is authorized to do business here. The city ordinance under which this proceeding was instituted was approved on the 29th of June, 1869. It provides: “Section 2. That no person, or association or company of persons, or corporation, shall carry on in this city, in person or by agent, the business of any kind of insurance without a license for that purpose continuing in force.” “Section 3. Each license required by this ordinance shall be issued to any person applying for the same, at the rate of $200 per year, but no license shall be issued for a shorter period than six months. * * Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be prosecuted before the police justice of said city, and fined $200 for each offense.”

The authority under which this power is sought to be derived for licensing insurance companies is contained in the forty-fifth subdivision of the first section of article IV of the city charter, passed in 1867, which provides that the mayor and city council shall have power within the city, by ordinance not inconsistent with any law of this State, “to license all insurance companies, banking corporations and banking associations.” (Sess. Acts 1867, p. 45.)

When this charter was passed there was a special provision in the statute law relating to the taxation of foreign insurance companies in the city of St. Louis, which declared “that the agent or agents of any foreign insurance company doing fire, river or marine insurance business in the city of St. Louis, in addition to the tax on gross premiums as above provided for against such companies, shall also pay to the collector of the ward in said city in which the office of said agent is located, on or before the first day of February of each and every year, the sum of $100 for the use of said city, which sum shall be considered in full for and in room of all taxes and licenses which said city may possess the power to impose on such...