State ex rel. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. Hahn

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM.
• Citation: 50 Ohio St. 714,35 N.E. 1052
• Parties: STATE ex rel. PENN MUT. LIFE INS. CO. OF PHILADELPHIA v. HAHN.
• Decision Date: 22 December 1893

50 Ohio St. 714
35 N.E. 1052

STATE ex rel. PENN MUT. LIFE INS. CO. OF PHILADELPHIA
v.
HAHN.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Dec. 22, 1893.

Original action, on the relation of the Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company of Philadelphia, for mandamus to Hahn, superintendent of insurance. Heard on demurrer to answer of respondent. Demurrer overruled.

Statement by the Court:

The relator, the Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company of Philadelphia, is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Pennsylvania, having its principal office at the city of Philadelphia, and, having complied with the laws of Ohio, has been permitted by the superintendent of insurance to do business in this state. It alleges that it is a regular company, wherein the policy holders participate in the surplus and savings of the company; that its agents made returns to the various county auditors of this state on or before May 1, 1893, as required by section 2745, Rev. St., as amended April 19, 1893, (90 Ohio Laws, 201,) and that the relator has paid the taxes assessed in the different counties of the state, and has produced the tax receipts to the superintendent of insurance. Relator further avers that within 60 days after the 1st day of January, 1893, it filed in the office of the superintendent of insurance the annual statement required by sections 3606 and 3608, on blank forms prepared and furnished by the superintendent of insurance, showing, among other things, the premiums collected or secured during the year 1892 in cash and notes, or credits, without any deduction. Relator further avers that subsequent to the 19th day of April, 1893, it presented to the superintendent of insurance a supplement to its annual statement theretofore filed, setting out the deductions to which it claims to be entitled under said section 2745, as amended April 19, 1893, to wit, ‘dividends or surplus from previous payments allowed and used in the payment of current premiums, cancelations or surrender values, and commissions paid to citizens of this state’ for the year 1892, and also tendered and offered to pay to the superintendent of insurance the sum of $1,957, in full of the amount of taxes due to the state after payments made to the various county treasurers. Relator says that the superintendent of insurance refused to permit said supplemental statement, showing such deductions, to be filed, and refused to accept the sum tendered, and demanded a much larger sum, to wit, such a sum as, added to the amounts paid to the county treasurers, would produce an amount equal to 2 1/2 per cent. of the gross premium and assessment receipts of said company for the year 1892, as shown by the annual statement filed in the insurance department within 60 days after January 1, 1893; and that the superintendent of insurance threatens to deprive the relator of its right to carry on its business of insurance in this state unless the amount so claimed by him shall be paid in full. Relator avers that the state of Pennsylvania does not exact of insurance companies organized under the laws of Ohio more than 2 1/2 per cent. on net receipts. The prayer of the petition is that the superintendent be commanded to receive and permit the filing of said supplemental statement, and to accept said sum of $1,957 as payment in full of all demands on the relator. The superintendent of insurance, by his answer, admits most of the averments of the petition of the relator, but takes issue upon the construction of the statute, as amended April 19, 1893, and claims that the relator is liable to pay to the superintendent of insurance such sum as, added to the amount paid to the county treasurers, would produce an amount equal to 2 1/2 per cent. of the gross premium and assessment receipts of the company for the...