Provident Savings Life Assurance Society v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
Decision Date | 15 November 1915 |
Docket Number | No. 328,328 |
Citation | 36 S.Ct. 34,239 U.S. 103,60 L.Ed. 167 |
Parties | PROVIDENT SAVINGS LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY, Piff. in Err., v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, by H. M. Bosworth, Auditor |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. William Marshall Bullitt, Charles C. Lockwood, Keith L. Bullitt, and Clarence C. Smith for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 104 intentionally omitted] Mr. John A. Judy and Mr. James Garnett, Attorney General of Kentucky, for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 105 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Hughes delivered the opinion of the court:
The Provident Savings Life Assurance Society, a New York corporation, transacted business in Kentucky prior to January 1, 1907, and paid the annual license tax of 2 per cent on premiums. Ky. Stat. § 4226. This suit was brought by the commonwealth to recover the tax on premiums received in the years 1907 to 1911, inclusive. The company answered, denying liability upon the ground that on January 1, 1907, it had entirely ceased to do business in Kentucky, and that all premiums received after that date on policies previously issued in Kentucky were received in New York.
Prior to the amendments made in the year 1906, § 4226 of the Kentucky Statutes provided as follows:
Ky. Stat. 1903 ed.
This section was amended in 1906 by making the fiscal year to end on December 31st instead of June 30th, by prohibiting deductions for dividends, and by amplifying the description of premium receipts. (See Mutual Ben. L. Ins. Co. v. Com. 128 Ky. 174, 107 S. W. 802; Northwestern Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. James, 138 Ky. 48, 127 S. W. 505.) The amended section was as follows:
In 1906, the legislature added the following provision, which is found in § 4230a of the Kentucky Statutes:
It does not appear that the changes in § 4226 were involved in the present controversy, as there was no dispute as to the amount of the premiums received in the years in question, or as to deductions. But the company insisted that § 4230a was invalid under the contract clause of the Federal Constitution (art. I. § 10), and also that the imposition of the tax on premiums received after the company had withdrawn from the state was contrary to the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Demurrer to the answer was overruled, the motion of the defendant that the demurrer relate back to the petition was sustained, and the petition was dismissed. Judgment to this effect was reversed by the court of appeals of Kentucky and the cause was remanded with direction to sustain the demurrer to the answer and for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the appellate court. 155 Ky. 197, 159 S. W. 698.
The company then amended its answer, renewing its constitutional objections. Enlarging the statement of facts, it averred that on January 1, 1907, it had withdrawn all its agents from Kentucky, had closed all its offices, and had ceased to solicit or write insurance, or maintain any agent, or collect any premiums, within that jurisdiction. On January 1, 1911, the Postal Life Insurance Company, a New York corporation, had reinsured all the business of the defendant. Between January 1, 1907, and January 1, 1911, all premiums paid to the defendant upon policies theretofore issued in Kentucky were paid to it at its home office in New York city through the mail.
The Postal Life Insurance Company did not have at any time an officer or agents in Kentucky, or transact any business in that state, and all premiums that it received were paid to it in New York through the mail.
Demurrer to the amended answer was sustained and judgment was entered in favor of the commonwealth. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment (160 Ky. 16, 169 S. W. 551) and this writ of error has been sued out.
The court of appeals did not put its decision upon the provision of § 4230a. This provision, it was said, was declaratory of the existing law, and the company's obligation was taken to be defined by § 4226. The tax was a license tax (Northwestern Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. James, 138 Ky. 48, 52, 127 S. W. 505), payable annually, and by the express terms of the act was payable by the foreign life insurance corporation 'doing business' within the state. Both parties agree that it was imposed 'for the privilege of doing business in Kentucky.' The state contends that it is seeking to enforce an agreement which, by implication from the statutory provision, the company must be deemed to have made when it entered the state. But there is no suggestion that it had ever been decided prior to this litigation that the described companies were bound under § 4226 to pay the annual tax irrespective of the continued transaction of business within the jurisdiction during the years to which the tax related. Nor, as we understand it, was the statute so construed in the present case. It is true that the court stated in its opinion that the company, on being admitted to the state, agreed to pay the tax imposed by § 4226, and that the company did not have 'the right and power to revoke this agreement as it attempted to do the 1st of January, 1907.' But, immediately following this statement, the court proceeded to hold with an explicitness which does not permit us to doubt the basis of its decision that the company was liable to the tax because it continued, despite the asserted withdrawal, to do business within the state during the period for which the tax was sought to be collected. If the tax in controversy was demanded by the state and was enforced upon the ground that it was payable for a privilege which the company admittedly enjoyed in prior years, it was manifestly immaterial to inquire whether or not the company was continuing to transact a local business during the succeeding period. In that aspect, the question would be whether, with respect to the alleged agreement, the decision could be deemed to be one which in reality gave effect to the subsequent legislation (of 1906) and involved the application of the contract clause. If, however, the tax now sought to be imposed was for a privilege exercised during the years to which the tax related, it would be necessary to find that the company was doing business within the state at that time. Evidently in view of this necessity, the court of appeals said upon the first appeal:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morrison v. Guaranty Mortgage & Trust Co
... ... information ... Standard ... Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Tinney, 73 Miss. 726, 19 So ... 336; Coffman v. The Bank of Kentucky, 41 ... Miss. 202; Emanuel & B. v. Miles, ... Miss. 584, 107 So. 673; Pioneer Savings v. Cannon, ... 96 Tenn. 599, 36 S.W. 386; 2 Am ... 79, 62 L.Ed. 587; Provident ... Savings Life Assurance Society v ... ...
-
Connecticut General Life Ins Co v. Johnson
...110 A.L.R. 732; People ex rel. Sea Insurance Co. v. Graves, 274 N.Y. 312, 8 N.E.2d 872; compare Provident Savings Life Assurance Society v. Kentucky, 239 U.S. 103, 36 S.Ct. 34, 60 L.Ed. 167, L.R.A.1916C, 572. It follows that such a tax, otherwise unconstitutional, is not converted into a va......
-
Miller Bros Co v. State of Maryland
...423; Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co. v. O'Connor, 223 U.S. 280, 285, 32 S.Ct. 216, 217, 56 L.Ed. 436; Provident Savings Life Assurance Society v. Kentucky, 239 U.S. 103, 36 S.Ct. 34, 60 L.Ed. 167; Looney v. Crane Co., 245 U.S. 178, 187—188, 38 S.Ct. 85, 86, 87, 62 L.Ed. 230; International Paper C......
-
Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States v. Thulemeyer, Insurance Com'r
...392; W. U. T. Company v. Kansas, 216 U.S. 1; U. S. v. Bennett, 232 U.S. 299; N.Y. L. I. Company v. Head, 234 U.S. 149; Assurance Society v. Kentucky, 239 U.S. 103; International Paper Company v. Massachusetts, U.S. 135; Compress Company v. Arkansas, 260 U.S. 346; Air-Way Corp. v. Day, 266 U......
-
How Many Times Was Lochner-era Substantive Due Process Effective? - Michael J. Phillips
...268 U.S. 473, 488-501 (1925) (tax on transfer of out-of-state tangible property); Provident Sav. Life Assurance Soc'y v. Kentucky, 239 U.S. 103, 112-16 (1915) (tax on insurance premiums paid by state's residents to insurer that had ceased to do business in state); Atchison, Topeka, & Santa ......