Commonwealth v. Roswell

• Decision Date: 08 March 1899
• Citation: 53 N.E. 132,173 Mass. 119
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. ROSWELL.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

173 Mass. 119

53 N.E. 132

COMMONWEALTH v. ROSWELL.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 8, 1899

COUNSEL

M.J. Sughrue, for the Commonwealth.

S.H Tyng, for defendant.

OPINION

KNOWLTON J.

The only questions argued by the defendant on his bill of exceptions are--First, whether St.1894, c. 522, §§ 87, 98 apply to cases where insurance is effected on property which is not within the commonwealth; and, secondly, if it does whether it is constitutional. We are of opinion that both of these questions must be answered in the affirmative.

This statute contains elaborate provisions, intended to protect the people of the commonwealth from loss through dealings with irresponsible insurance companies. The sections in regard to insurance brokers and insurance agents of various kinds are Nos. 83, 87 to 93, 97, 98, 99, and others. There is a special provision in section 88 in regard to the agents of domestic insurance companies. Section 93 relates to insurance brokers, and requires that they be licensed by the insurance commissioner. Section 83 authorizes the licensing of persons to effect insurance in foreign insurance companies not authorized to do business in this commonwealth, when they are unable to procure, in companies admitted to do business here, the amount of insurance necessary to protect the property. The right of the legislature to regulate the transaction of business by foreign corporations in this commonwealth, or to forbid it altogether, is beyond question. Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648-652, 15 Sup.Ct. 207; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168. The exceptions to this rule are where the corporation rests its right upon a federal statute, or where it is a federal agent, or is engaged in interstate commerce. W.U. Tel. Co. v. Texas, 105 U.S. 460; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U.S. 196, 205, 211, 5 Sup.Ct. 826; Philadelphia & S.S.S. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U.S. 326-342, 7 Sup.Ct. 1118; Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U.S. 47, 11 Sup.Ct. 851.

The legislature of Massachusetts has decided that a convenient way of providing for the protection of her inhabitants in this respect is, among other things, to forbid the transaction of business by insurance brokers or insurance agents, unless they are licensed. There is nothing in the language of the statute which indicates that it is not as applicable to the negotiation in this commonwealth of a contract for insurance upon property outside of the commonwealth as if the property were within the commonwealth. The situation of the property does not affect the reasons for the rules regulating the business of insurance conducted here. An unlicensed person, who acts as an insurance agent to make a contract for insurance with one of our citizens...