Hoadley v. Purifoy
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Writing for the Court | COLEMAN, J. |
Citation | 18 So. 220,107 Ala. 276 |
Parties | HOADLEY ET AL. v. PURIFOY, STATE AUDITOR. |
Decision Date | 25 July 1895 |
Appeal from city court of Montgomery; Thomas M. Arrington, Judge.
Petition by Russell H. Hoadley and others for a writ of mandamus to compel John Purifoy, state auditor, to issue to plaintiffs a license to do insurance business in the state. From an order sustaining a demurrer to the petition, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
The appellants are all citizens of New York, doing the business of underwriters under the style of the South & North American Lloyds of the City of New York. On the 14th day of January 1895, and again about the 10th day of March, 1895, they applied to the Honorable John Purifoy, auditor of the state of Alabama, for a license to transact the business of fire inland, and marine insurance in this state. On each occasion they tendered him the sum of $100, and all lawful fees, and filed with him at the same time a written instrument, as required by section 1201 of the Code, appointing an agent for the service of process, and also two sworn statements showing their assets, condition, etc. The appellants, not being a corporation, did not file any "certified copy of the charter," but they did file a statement (Exhibit A) showing how the petitioners were organized or constituted. These several statements were verified by an agent or attorney, petitioners having no president, etc.; and, of course, they do not disclose any "capital stock," "president," etc. As appellants' property is all in cash, the statements do not show the "location and value of real estate, or amounts secured by bonds and mortgages," nor "bonds of this state nor of the United States," etc. This sworn statement, however shows: Cash deposited with the Bank of North America $91,616.40, and gross premiums in process of collection $58,474.72; making an aggregate amount of all the assets of the company, stated at their actual value, of $160,091.12. The same statement shows: Liabilities, $31,625; or a cash capital of $128,466, after paying all outstanding claims,-"the absolute property of the underwriters, free and clear of any lien or claims thereon." These statements show that the receipts of appellants for the past year were $439,064, and the total expenses and disbursements for the same period $271,576.01. The statement which was marked "Exhibit A" to the petition, showing how the petitioners were organized and constituted, was as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bankers' Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Sloss, 6 Div. 511.
...or public interest, and is within the police power of the state to reasonably safeguard and protect. Hoadley v. Purifoy, as Auditor, 107 Ala. 276, 290, 18 So. 220, 30 L. R. A. 351; Continental Insurance Co. v. Parkes, 142 Ala. 650, 39 So. 204; State Life Insurance Co. v. Westcott, 166 Ala. ......
-
Farmers Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange v. MacDonald, 2252
...Montana have both ruled that this type of insurance organization can do business under general insurance laws; see Hoadby v. Purefoy (Ala.) 18 So. 220; State v. Porter (Mont.) 294 P. 363. By the use of the term "association" in § 57-424 the legislature intended to embrace all forms of insur......
-
Intermountain Lloyds v. Diefendorf, 5759
...4978, 4980, 5021, 5023, 5024, 5025, and 5026; State ex rel. Intermountain Lloyds v. Porter, 88 Mont. 347, 294, P. 363; Hoadley v. Purifoy, 107 Ala. 276, 18 So. 220, 30 L. R. A. 351; State v. Board Ins. Commrs., 37 Fla. 564, 20 So. 772, 33 L. R. A. 288; Sun Ins. Office v. Merz, 63 N. J. 365,......
-
Intermountain Lloyds v. Diefendorf, 5759
...4978, 4980, 5021, 5023, 5024, 5025, and 5026; State ex rel. Intermountain Lloyds v. Porter, 88 Mont. 347, 294, P. 363; Hoadley v. Purifoy, 107 Ala. 276, 18 So. 220, 30 L. R. A. 351; State v. Board Ins. Commrs., 37 Fla. 564, 20 So. 772, 33 L. R. A. 288; Sun Ins. Office v. Merz, 63 N.J. 365, ......