Provident Savings Life Assur. Society v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 01 October 1914
• Citation: 169 S.W. 551,160 Ky. 16
• Parties: PROVIDENT SAVINGS LIFE ASSUR. SOCIETY v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

169 S.W. 551

160 Ky. 16

PROVIDENT SAVINGS LIFE ASSUR. SOCIETY v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 1, 1914

Appeal from Circuit Court, Franklin County.

Action by the Commonwealth of Kentucky against the Provident Savings Life Assurance Society. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

See also, 155 Ky. 750, 160 S.W. 476.

Wm Marshall Bullitt, Clarence C. Smith, Bruce & Bullitt, and Keith L. Bullitt, all of Louisville, for appellant.

James Garnett, Atty. Gen., John A. Judy, of Mt. Sterling, and C. R McDowell, of Danville, for the Commonwealth.

CARROLL J.

This is the second appeal in this case. The opinion on the first appeal may be found in 155 Ky. 197, 159 S.W. 698.

On a return of the case after its reversal by this court, the appellant filed an answer in which it averred: That it was a foreign corporation, organized under the laws of the state of New York, and that on January 1, 1907, it ceased to do business in the state of Kentucky and withdrew from the state. That on January 1, 1911, the Postal Life Insurance Company, a foreign corporation organized under the laws of the state of New York, reinsured all of the business of the appellant written in Kentucky and assumed and agreed to perform all of the obligations of the company in respect to policies issued in Kentucky. That between January 1, 1907 and January 1, 1911, all premiums paid to appellant by persons on policies theretofore issued in Kentucky were paid to it at its home office in New York by such persons mailing to it at such office the premiums. But after January 1, 1911, all premiums accruing on policies written by it while it was doing business in this state were paid to the Postal Life Insurance Company, which company at no time had an office or agents in this state and did not solicit or write any business therein, and the premiums paid to it on account of its reinsurance of the business of appellant were paid by the insured mailing the premiums to it at its home office in New York. It further averred that sections 4226 and 4230a of the Kentucky Statutes, as construed by this court in the former opinion, which held that, notwithstanding the fact that appellant ceased to do business in the state in the manner stated, it was liable for the tax, under these sections, violated the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. To this answer a general demurrer was sustained...