Noble v. Mitchell
Decision Date | 30 November 1896 |
Docket Number | No. 101,101 |
Citation | 41 L.Ed. 472,17 S.Ct. 110,164 U.S. 367 |
Parties | NOBLE et al. v. MITCHELL |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
J. M. Chilton and A. A. Wiley, for plaintiffs in error.
Charles Wilkinson, for defendant in error.
Article 2, c. 5, tit. 12, Code Ala., regulates the subject of fire and marine insurance within the state by companies not incorporated therein. It is required by section 1199 that such companies shall pay annually into the treasury the sum of $100. Section 1200 directs that each of such corporations must file with the state auditor a certified copy of its charter, and a statement setting forth certain items in relation to its business condition on the 31st day of December next preceding; and by section 1201 such corporations are required to possess a cash capital of at least $150,000, and are obliged to file a written instrument consenting to service of process upon any agent of such company within the state. Upon complance with all the requirements of the article, the auditor, if satisfied that the affairs of such company are in sound condition, if required to issue to it a license to transact the business of insurance within the state until the 15th day of January next ensuing.
Sections 1205, and 1207 of the same article read as follows:
The action below was originally instituted in a circuit court of Alabama by Mitchell, a citizen of Alabama, to recover from the defendants, a firm of insurance agents doing business in the city of Montgomery, the amount of a loss under a policy of insurance covering a stock of merchandise owned by the plaintiff, which policy was procured by the defendants from a corporation known as the Fairmount Insurance Association of Philadelphia, Pa. The corporation in question was not incorporated under the laws of Alabama, and at the time of the issue of the policy had not been licensed to do an insurance business within that state. From a verdict and judgment against them, the defendants prosecuted error. The supreme court of the state affirmed the judgment. 100 Ala. 519, 14 South. 581.
The highest court of the state having affirmed the validity of the state statute, and enforced its provisions against the plaintiff in error, despite his objection duly made that such statute was repugnant to the constitution of the United States, a writ of error was allowed, and the cause is here for review.
In Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 15 Sup. Ct. 207, this court held that a statute of the state of California which made it a misdemeanor for a person in that state to procure insurance for a resident in the state from an insurance company not incorporated under its laws, and which company had not filed the bond required by the laws of the state, was not a regulation of commerce, and did not conflict with the constitution of the United States. The doctrine of earlier decisions of this court with reference to contracts of insurance—namely, that the business of insurance is not commerce, and that a contract of insurance is not, in the constitutional sense of the words, an instrumentality of commerce was reiterated, and held applicable to a marine policy. This court said (page 655, 155 U. S., and page 210, 15 Sup. Ct.):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
American Fire Ins. Co. v. King Lumber & Mfg. Co.
...... Leffingwell v. Warren, 2 Black, 599 [17 L.Ed. 261]; People v. Weaver, 100 U.S. 539, 541 [25 L.Ed. 705]; Noble v. Mitchell, 164 U.S. 367, 372 [17 S.Ct. 110, 41 L.Ed. 472], and cases there cited.'. . . We. would call especial attention to ......
-
United States v. Underwriters Ass, SOUTH-EASTERN
...19 L.Ed. 1029; Philadelphia Fire Association v. New York, 119 U.S. 110, 118, 7 S.Ct. 108, 112, 30 L.Ed. 342; Noble v. Mitchell, 164 U.S. 367, 370, 17 S.Ct. 110, 111, 41 L.Ed. 472; New York Life Insurance Company v. Cravens, 178 U.S. 389, 401, 20 S.Ct. 962, 967, 44 L.Ed. 1116; Nutting v. Mas......
-
State ex rel. Weede v. Iowa S. Utilities Co. of Del.
...57 S.Ct. 677, 81 L.Ed. 1061, 113 A.L.R. 228;Pullman Co. v. Kansas, 216 U.S. 56, 65, 30 S.Ct. 232, 54 L.Ed. 378, 385; Noble v. Mitchell, 164 U.S. 367, 17 S.Ct. 110, 41 L.Ed. 472;American Fidelity Co. v. Bleakley, 157 Iowa 442, 138 N.W. 508;Schmid v. Automobile Underwriters, 215 Iowa 170, 175......
-
First Nat. Ben. Soc. v. Garrison
...110, 7 S.Ct. 108, 30 L.Ed. 342; Hooper v. California, 1895, 155 U.S. 648, 655, 15 S.Ct. 207, 39 L. Ed. 297; Noble v. Mitchell, 1896, 164 U. S. 367, 17 S.Ct. 110, 41 L.Ed. 472; Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 1897, 165 U.S. 578, 17 S.Ct. 427, 41 L.Ed. 832; New York L. Ins. Co. v. Cravens, 1900, 178 U......
-
Severability as Conditionality
...connected in substance.'" (quoting Commonwealth v. Hitchings, 71 Mass. (5 Gray) 482, 486 (1855))). 89. See, e.g., Noble v. Mitchell, 164 U.S. 367, 369, 372 (1896) (treating as binding the Alabama Supreme Court's severance of the words "association or partnership" from the statutory sentence......