State v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 22 June 1893
• Citation: 99 Ala. 221,13 So. 362
• Parties: STATE v. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

13 So. 362

99 Ala. 221

STATE v. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 22, 1893

Appeal from city court of Montgomery; Thomas M. Arrington, Judge.

Action by the state of Alabama against the Hartford Fire Insurance Company to recover a license fee of $250 for the privilege of doing business within the state. Defendant had judgment, and the state appeals. Affirmed.

The act under which this action was brought is as follows: "An act to require all corporations to pay a fee or license for the use of the state before commencing business in this state. Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Alabama, that hereafter, before any commission shall be issued to any corporation organized under the general incorporation laws of this state, authorizing such corporation to do business, the parties to whom the same is issued shall pay to the judge of probate or other officer issuing the same the following fees, for the use of the state: Where the proposed capital stock of such corporation does not exceed fifty thousand dollars, a fee of twenty-five ($25) dollars; where it exceeds fifty thousand dollars, but does not exceed one hundred thousand, a fee of fifty ($50) dollars; where it exceeds one hundred thousand dollars, but does not exceed two hundred and fifty thousand, a fee of seventy-five ($75) dollars; where it exceeds two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, but does not exceed five hundred thousand, a fee of one hundred ($100) dollars; where it exceeds five hundred thousand dollars, but does not exceed one million, a fee of two hundred ($200) dollars; where such proposed capital stock exceeds one million dollars, two hundred and fifty ($250) dollars. Sec. 2. Be it further enacted, that all fees so paid shall be paid by the officer receiving the same into the state treasury in the same manner as licenses and other fees belonging to the state are now required to be paid by such officer. Sec. 3. Be it further enacted, that before any bill for the creation of any corporation by any special act of the general assembly of this state shall be introduced, there shall be paid into the treasury of the state, by the parties seeking the same double the amount of fees herein above required to be paid by corporations organized under the general incorporation law of the state: provided, if such charter should not be granted by the legislature, the money so paid shall be refunded to the person paying the same. Sec. 4. Be it further enacted, that no corporation created by the laws of any other state or of any foreign country shall hereafter carry on any business in this state without first having paid into the treasury of this state, for the use of the state, like fees as those required of corporations organized under the general incorporation laws of this state by the first section of this act. Sec. 5. Be it further enacted, that all contracts made in this state after the first day of July, 1893, by any corporation which has not first complied with the provisions of this act, shall be wholly void. Sec. 6. Be it further enacted, that it is the intention of this act that the fee or license hereby required shall be paid once only, and that such payment does not relieve any corporation from the duty of complying with the requirements of existing laws. Approved February 18, 1893." The defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground that the statute on which it was founded was unconstitutional. This demurrer being overruled the defendant set up by special plea the defense which is shown in the opinion. The plaintiff demurred to this special plea on the ground that the matters and things alleged in said plea constituted no defense to the action, which was stated in various forms. The demurrer was overruled, and issue being joined, there was verdict and judgment for the defendant.

Wm. L Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

Tompkins & Gray, for appellee.

STONE J.

This is a suit by the state against a foreign insurance company, and is sought to be maintained under the act approved February 8 1893, (Acts 1892-93, pp. 690, 691.) The sole question presented for our consideration is the judgment of the city court overruling plaintiff's demurrer to defendant's plea in bar. The suit was commenced in May, 1893, and it is averred in the complaint that the defendant, a corporation created by the laws of Connecticut, with a capital stock of $1,250,000, and "authorized by its charter to engage in the business of issuing policies of fire insurance, did engage in said corporate business, and did issue policies of fire insurance, within the state of Alabama after the 18th day of February, 1893, and has continued to engage, and is now engaged, in said business within said state, without having first paid into the treasury of said state, for the use of the state,...