« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
"A railway company by a rule prohibited con-1 ductors and engineers from making flying switch- AMERICAN BANKERS' INS. CO. v. THOMes. The deceased, a brakeman, working under
AS. (No. 4750.) the direction of an engineer, was not guilty of contributory negligence when the manner of (Supreme Court of Oklahoma. Oct. 12, 1915. switching by which he was killed had been the
Rehearing Denied Jan. 11, 1916.) usual and customary way of doing the same, though he knew of the rule."
(Syllabus by the Court.) And see K. C. Ry. Co. v. Kier, 41 Kan. 662, \1. INSURANCE 136 – LIFE INSURANCE – 671, 21 Pac. 770, 13 Am. St. Rep. 311; A., T. DELIVERY OF POLICY – WAIVER OF CONDI& S. F. R. Co. v. Slattery, 57 Kan. 499, 46 TION. Pac. 941; Karns v. Railway, 87 Kan. 154,
On December 5, 1910, the insured made ap
plication in writing to defendant at S., through 123 Pac. 758.
its special agent, for the policies sued on, there Other evidence objected to was that in representing his health to be good. The special the plaintiff below was allowed to show that agent recommended the acceptance of the risk, it was not practical to do switching at de
sent the same to the home office at Chicago,
where policies issued and were sent to the bank pots, unless the brakeman got on and off | at S., pursuant to an arrangement with the moving trains, and that plaintiff was allow- bank to turn them over to any one having the ed to show the condition of the platform
right to receive them on payment of the pre
miums, which, when paid, were to be credited three weeks after the accident, there being
to the account of defendant by the bank as its no evidence that its condition had changed, depository. At the time the policies arrived M. except the natural depreciation from the ele- was the local soliciting agent of the defendant ments. No extended discussion is necessary
at S., under agreement with defendant for a
certain per cent, of the first year's premium on to show that this evidence was competent,
business written with his aid. Having assisted nor do the other exceptions to the admis in securing the business in question, and being sion of evidence require extended notice. for. entitled to part of the premiums on delivery of even admitting the violation of the rules, if
the policies, M., on February 8, 1911, with
knowledge that deceased was in ill health, inthere was any under the express words of structed H., a collector for the bank, to turn the the rule that employés must not alight from policies over to the insured on payment of the trains moving at a high rate of speed, the
premiums if he so desired; whereupon H., with
the permission of the cashier, after banking question was fairly left to the jury.
hours entered the bank, left a check for the  The next assignment of error is to the amount of the premiums, took the policies, and charge as given, and also to the refusal to caused them to be delivered to the insured, who give certain specific instructions asked by
died next day. Held, the policies providing that
they "shall not take effect until the same shall the defendant.
be issued and delivered by the company, and [8, 9] We have carefully examined the en the first premium paid thereon in full when my tire instructions given be the court to the health is in the same condition as described in
this application," the good health of the insured jury, and also those requested by the de- was a condition precedent to the delivery of the fendant, and we find the instructions as giv- policies. Held, further, that the local soliciting en to present the questions fairly and im- agent was without authority to waive such con
| dition, and that on the facts stated no risk atpartially, and, as far as those requested
|tached under the contract of insurance. were applicable, they are covered by the in
[Ed. Note.--For other cases, see Insurance, structions given. The court did not com-Cent. Dig. 88 219-230; Dec. Dig. Om136.] mit any error that this court can review in refusing to submit the special interrogatories 2. INSURANCE Ow141-LIFE INSURANCE-ACto the jury in addition to the general ver
TION ON POLICY-DEFENSE-ESTOPPEL. dict. See section 21, art. 7, of the Constitu- the check give
But where, in addition to the facts stated,
Constitu" (the check given in payment of the premiums was tion, construed in King v. Timmons, 23 Okl. collected and the proceeds placed to the credit 407, 100 Pac. 536; Cook v. State, 35 Okl. of defendant, pursuant to a prior arrangement 653, 130 Pac. 300.
with the bank, and, being thus received, has
since been retained by defendant with knowledge  The last assignment of error is that of all the facts, held to constitute a waiver of the jury did not apportion the amount of the such condition precedent, and that defendant is recovery between the wife and child of the
estopped to urge that no risk attached under the
contract of insurance. deceased, but this very question was decided
u ra Note For other cases. See Insurance. adversely to the plaintiff in error in Central | Cent. Dig. 88 75, 253-262; Dec. Dig. 141.) Vermont Ry. Co. v. White, 238 U. S. 507, 35 Sup. Ct. 865, 59 L. Ed. 1433, where it is held:
Error from District Court, Pontotoc Coun“A general verdict for the plaintiff may be returned by the jury in an action brought by the
ty; Tom D. McKeown, Judge. administratrix under the federal Employers Action by Belle D. Thomas against the Liability Act (35 Stat, at L. c. 149), for the American Bankers' Insurance Company. benefit of the widow and minor children of the Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings deceased employé, without apportioning the damages between the beneficiaries.'
error. Affirmed. We, therefore, recommend that the judg. Frank C. Rogers, of Chicago, Ill., and C. A. ment be affirmed.
Galbraith and Hainer, Burns & Toney, all
of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error. J. PER CURIAM. Adopted in whole. |F, McKeel, of Ada, for defendant in error.
TURNER, J. On January 3, 1912, in the of the premium due him on the delivery of district court of Pontotoc county Belle D. the policies in question, and also having Thomas, defendant in error, sued the Amer- theretofore received from Smith a letter reican Bankers' Insurance Company, plaintiff questing him not only to make settlement on in error, on two life insurance policies issued certain policies that had come in, but also on by it, one insuring the life of Bowline F. “any other policies that may come in,” MarThomas, her husband, in the sum of $2,000, tin, while the insured was in good health, and the other insuring his life for $1,000, being informed that the policies were at the both in her favor. The policies were issued bank for delivery, on about February 1st, inupon application made by him as part of the formed the deceased where they were, and contract both of which provide that the if they wanted them they would go get them, same "shall not take effect until the same whereupon they went to the bank. There shall be issued and delivered by the company, Martin left the insured outside and went into and the first premium paid thereon in full, the bank and got them, but, on his return. while my health is in the same condition as some 45 minutes later, the insured was gone. described in this application,” which was He was taken sick on February 3d, and no therein stated to be good. The petition sub-further effort was made to deliver the polistantially states that, although at the time cies until February -8, 1911. On that day N. the policies were delivered the insured was T. Heard, who was collecting for the bank, sick and died the next day, defendant is es- having in his possession a key thereto, learntopped to urge that the same did not take ed that the insured was sick and so informed effect by reason of certain facts alleged in the Martin, who requested him to ascertain petition as constituting a waiver. After de- whether insured wanted the policies, and, if murrer thereto had been filed and overruled so, to get them from the bank and deliver and defendant had answered, in effect, a gen-| them. Upon learning that the insured wanteral denial and certain special pleas anded the policies, Heard, after banking hours, plaintiff had joined issue by reply, there was telephoned the cashier to that effect, and that trial to a jury, and judgment for plaintiff for the insured was sick, whereupon the cashier the amount of both policies with interest told him to go to the bank and get the poliand defendant brings the case here.
cies and leave the premium, which he did by Both sides concede that the liability of the entering with his key and leaving with the company turns upon the question of whether bank a check for the amount thereof, drawn the risk attached. Defendant says it did not by the son of the insured, which was paid, because it is urged one Martin, who delivered and its proceeds the next day placed to the the policies, was without authority so to do, credit of the defendant company. Upon reor to waive the condition, precedent therein, ceiving the policies Heard took them to his that risk would not attach unless the same safe, and the next morning turned them over was delivered while the insured was in good to one Bishop, who delivered them to the inhealth.
sured, who died the next day. Under this  There is no dispute as to the essential state of facts no risk attached. facts. The evidence discloses that on Decem- That part of the policy which provides that ber 5, 1910, the insured made application in the same shall not take effect until it is dewriting to defendant at Stonewall, through livered by the company while the insured is one Edgar D. Smith, its special agent, for in good health prescribes a condition prethe policies in question, therein representing cedent to the attachment of the risk under his health to be good. Smith recommended the policy. 1 Cooley's Briefs on the Law of the acceptance of the risk and sent the same Insurance, p. 451. Recognizing it to be such, to the home office at Chicago. There the poli- plaintiff properly pleaded a waiver thereof cies were issued and sent to the First Nation-by setting up the facts as stated. Western, al Bank at Stonewall, under an arrangement etc., Ins. Co. v. Coon, 38 Okl. 453, 134 Pac. 22; with the bank to turn them over to any one Anders v. Life Ins. Clearing Co., 62 Neb. having a right to receive them on payment 585, 87 N. W. 331. Favoring liability, she of the premiums, which was to be credited to contends that the knowledge of Martin of the the account of the company by the bank as ill health of the insured at the time the polits depository. At the time the policies ar-icy was delivered was the knowledge of the rived H. B. Martin was the local soliciting company and a waiver of the condition. Not agent of the defendant theretofore appointed so. Assuming that Martin was the agent of by Smith under an agreement in writing with the company at that time, with authority to the company for a certain per cent. of the deliver the policies, it failing to appear that first year's premium on business written and he had anything to do with the execution settled for by himself, and for another per thereof or the acceptance of the risk, his cent. of the premium on business written as knowledge was not that of the company. In a result of his personal assistance. He could Merchants' & Planters' Ins. Co. v. Marsh, 34 receive no money due or to become due ex- Okl. 453, 125 Pac. 1100, we held that the cept in exchange of premium receipts signed knowledge of the agent was the knowledge by an executive officer of the company. Hav- of the company only where the authority of ing assisted Smith in securing the applica- such agent, derived from the company, was lo
contracts of insurance as an alter ego of the insured. Upon its arrival on August 8, 1909, company, and that it was only in such case pursuant to instructions, the policy was dethat he had power to waive the conditions of posited for him in the safe of the soliciting the policy. In that case the agent was, as agents, along with other private papers of here, a local or soliciting agent, and there the insured kept there by him. Two days bethe policy sued on was, as here, a "home of-fore that time the insured received a fatal infice policy," or one issued direct by the presi- jury from which he died on the night of Audent and secretary of the company as dis-gust 11th. On August 6th, one of the solicittinguished from one issued by the local agent. ing agents visited the insured and knew of There, in the syllabus, we said:
his injury. The court said: "A local agent of an insurance company, "There can be no doubt that it is competent whose only power is to solicit applications for for the parties to stipulate in the application insurance, and forward them to the company for for insurance, as here, that the policy shall not approval, when, if approved, the company issues be effective or binding until delivered to, and the policy and causes it to be delivered to the accepted by, the insured while in good health insured, has no power to waive any of the pro and the payment of the first premium is made. visions of the policy so delivered. * *
It is said that a contract of life insurance is Also in keeping with this rule is Des
not complete until the last act necessary to be Moines Ins. Co. v. Moon, 33 Okl. 437, 126 Pac.
done by the insured, under the conditions of the
contract, after acceptance of the application by 753. There we said:
the company, has been done by him, and the “* * Where the local agent has the pow
courts, therefore, in proper cases, sustain such er to accept a risk and deliver a policy of in agreements which operate to postpone the taking surance, and is advised and has full knowledge, effect of the policy until the delivery and preat the time of the delivery of the policy, that mium payment while the insured is in good certain conditions of the policy, which may be
health. See 1 Bacon, Life Ins. (3d Ed.) 8 waived, are violated, such policy is binding upon
272; Kilcullen v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 108 Mo. the company, notwithstanding the fact that it | App. 61, 82 s. W, 966; Misselhorn v. Mutual contains a provision that none of the company's Reserve, etc., Lte lns. Co., 30 Mo. App. 588; officers or agents can waive any of its provi- | McGregor v. Met. Life Ins. Co. [143 Ky. 4881 sions, except in writing, indorsed upon the poli
136 S. W. 889. But though such be true, the cy. This case, unanimously concurred in by
provision for thus suspending the policy, as an the members of the court, settles the rule in this effective contract, until the first premium is jurisdiction as to contracts of insurance written paid and its delivery, while the insured is in after the admission of the state.
good health, is for the benefit of the insurer, Of course if the local agent had not pow
and obviously may be waived by it or by its
agent possessing authority with respect to that er, as here, to accept the risk, he had no pow. matter. See Rhodus v. Kansas City, etc., Ins. er to waive the condition precedent in the Co., 156 Mo. App. 281, 137 S. W. 907. *'* policy. Cases relied on by plaintiff which
But it is insisted that a mere soliciting agent,
such as Cummings, is without authority to hold the contrary practically under the same waive the condition in the policy here relied upstate of facts fail to draw this distinction, on, and, for the purpose of the case, the propoand seem to hold that the knowledge of a sition may be conceded as true.” mere soliciting agent of the company of the Whereupon the court proceeded to considill health of the insured at the time of the er whether the company, under the facts in delivery of the policy is the knowledge of that case, had waived the condition in the the company, and hence a delivery with such policy relied upon. We are therefore of opinknowledge constitutes a waiver of the condi- ion that Martin was without authority to tion under consideration. They are Roe v. waive the condition relied on and that plainNational Life, etc., Co., 137 Iowa, 696, 115 tiff cannot recover unless defendant is esN. W. 500, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1144; Connectopped to deny that liability attached by ticut, etc., Ins. Co. y. Grogan (Ky.) 52 S. W. reason of receiving and retaining the pre959; N. W. Life Ins. Co. v. Findley, 29 Tex. miums as alleged in the petition. Joining Civ. App. 494, 68 S. W. 695; National Life issue on these allegations, defendant by anIns. Co. v. Twiddell (Ky.) 58 S. W. 699; Home swer in effect admitted accepting the premi. Forum Ben. Order v. Varnado (Tex. Civ. App.) ums as stated, but pleaded in avoidance that 55 S. W. 364, and others. But the distinction it tendered them back to a representative of is referred to in Bell v. Ins. Co., 166 Mo. App. the assured and demanded a return of the 390, 149 S. W. 33. In that case the insured, policies, which was refused, and for that reawho was plaintiff's brother, died at Nogales, son, it is urged, defendant is not estopped to Ariz., as a result of injuries received while assert that no liability attached under the working as a telegraph lineman. On July policies. 17, 1909, he made application to defendant  On this point there is no conflict in the for a policy of life insurance, payable in evidence. It discloses that the check which event of his death to plaintiff. He made it paid the premiums was drawn by Duard to defendant's soliciting agents at that place, Thomas, the son of plaintiff and the assured ; and paid the first annual premium cash in that it was received by the bank, cashed, and hand. The application was forwarded to de- the proceeds placed to the credit of the comfendant by mail, and duly received in St. pany, as directed by the company, and there Louis, Mo., on July 23, 1909. The policy was it remains, so far as this record discloses. conditioned the same as here. On July 27th, Martin, the local agent, knew of the death of the application was duly accepted, and the the insured on the day it occurred, and compolicy issued and was mailed August 4, 1909, municated it to the company, but just when is disclosed in a letter dated Chicago, Marchi In Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. McDowell, 28, 1911, addressed to him and signed by Ed- 42 Okl. 300, 141 Pac. 274, this court, in an gar D. Smith, in which Smith informed him opinion by Harrison, C., in the syllabus said: that the company would resist the claim.' "1. Where a policy insures against accident Heard informed the company through Frank for a period of one month only, but provides C. Rogers, their attorney, on March 11, 1911,
that it may be renewed and kept in force from
month to month by the payment of monthly prereceipt of which is acknowledged in a let- miums on a certain day of each month, and that ter from him to Heard, dated Chicago, March it shall be void and of no force and effect if 15, 1911, in which he informed Heard that the such payments are not made on or before the secretary of the company had recently visit
sit day mentioned in the policy, such forfeiting pro
visions, being inserted solely for the benefit of ed Stonewall and made an investigation of the insurance company, may be waived by the the facts in the case and the board of direc- company if it so desires, and such waiver on tors had authorized him to state, “that they
that they the part of the insurance company may be in
ferred from acts, as well as words. will refuse to pay the policy"; also that:
"2. Although a policy may provide for the "The company has offered to return the mon- payment of monthly premiums on or before 12 ey paid to the First National Bank of Stone- o'clock noon of the first day of each month, and wall, by B. E. Thomas & Co., as first year's that all premiums are due without grace at the premium upon the policy, and has asked for a re- time specified, and that the policy shall be void turn of the policy. The offer to return the pre- unless such premiums are so paid, and conmium upon delivery of the policy to the com tains the further provision that no alterations pany or its authorized agent is still open." or waiver of the contract shall be valid unless
made in writing at the company's home office As the record fails to disclose that the com- and signed by the president or vice president pany had done any such thing, of course no and secretary or assistant secretary, yet if such such offer was "still open.” Thus the matter
company, in dealing with a certain class of
policy holders in a certain district, establishes a stood, the company still retaining the pre
custom with such policy bolders of accepting the miums when in a letter, dated Chicago, Oc- premium payments at a later date because of tober 28, 1911, said attorney informed plain
the fact that such policy holders receive their tiff's attorney, Mr. McKeel, that:
monthly pay at a later date, and receives such
premiums and appropriates them and recogniz"In reply to your esteemed favor of the 24th es the policies as continuing in force by acceptinst., beg to state that nothing has arisen since ing the premiums, such acts on the part of the last spring to cause a change in the attitude of company constitute a waiver of the provision this company as expressed in our favor of March that the policy shall be void unless the premi15th, to Mr. N. T. Heard"
ums are paid on the first day of the month.
"3. Where such monthly premiums are collect-and that:
ed and retained by the company month after "Shortly after Mr. Thomas' decease the com month, and the policies continued in force, such pany caused a careful investigation to be made acts constitute a waiver on the part of the comof all the circumstances attending his applica- | pany itself, and not a waiver on the part of its tion for insurance, the * * " and therefore, | local agents and collectors." *under these circumstances, this company could do nothing but instruct the bank with which Mr.
Mr In Life Ins. Co. v. Altschuler, 55 Neb. 341, Thomas' representative had deposited the money 75 N. W. 862, the policy sued on contained in payment of his premiums to return the same | the same condition precedent as here, which to his estate."
good health was required to be in accordance The record wholly fails to disclose that the with the health certificate and premium recompany ever instructed the bank to do any ceipt accompanying same. Plaintiff admitted such thing, much less that the bank ever at- that no such certificate had been furnished, tempted to do as instructed. The evidence and insisted that such requirement had been fails to support the allegations in the answer waived by the defendant. After the policy that the premiums were tendered or offered had been delivered, the second premium beto be returned to any one. It takes no cita- came due and payable July 5th. It was not tion of authority to support the proposition paid until August 4th, when the wife of asthat this condition precedent, being for the sured procured a draft for the amount and benefit of the company, may be by the com- sent it to the home office at St. Paul. There pany waived, and is waived by its accepting the draft was received on August 6th, and and retaining the premiums with knowledge immediately cashed, and a receipt therefor of all the facts. 1 Cooley's Brief on the Law duly signed by the president of the company, of Insurance, at page 610, says:
bearing date July 5th, was mailed to her. On "In accordance with the general rule that es
August 14th, insured died, and on the 18th toppel may arise from the acceptance and reten
| the defendant company sent plaintiff a draft, tion of benefits is the principle that an insurer, informing her that the policy of her husband by receiving and retaining the premiums on a had never been in force, and that the money contract of insurance, is estopped to deny its power to issue a policy, or that liability attached sent for the premiums had been kept on dethereunder. Lockwood v. Middlesex Mut. Assur. posit awaiting the delivery of the health cerCo., 47 Conn. 553; Ins. Co. of North America tificate mentioned in the contract. Holding V. McDowell, 50 Ill. 120, 99 Am. Dec. 497 ; | Esch v. Home Ins. Co., 78' Iowa, 334, 43 N. W.
such to be a waiver of the condition there un229, 16 Am. St. Rep. 443; Watts v. Equitable der consideration, the court said: Mut. Life Ass'n, 111 Iowa, 90, 82 N. W. 441; "The letter accompanying the remittance statPowell v. Factors' & Traders' Ins. Co., 28 La. ed in plain language that it was sent as payment Ann. 19; Hoge v. Dwelling House Ins. Co., 138 of the second installment of the premium; and
received it as payment; for it so states in its | 2. INSURANCE 3-POWER TO REGULATE. receipt. The recital of that document is that The business of insurance affected by the the money was received for 'the quarterly pre- provisions of said act is of such a nature and mium due July 5, 1893, * * * on policy No. affected with such a public interest as to justify 2143, insuring the life of Sigmund Altschuler.' legislative regulation thereof and of the rates Indeed, according to a familiar principle of law, charged by the companies engaged in such busithe defendant could not have retained the mon Dess. ey except on the terms and for the purpose it [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Insurance, was tendered. By the mere act of converting | Cent. Dig. $ 3; Dec. Dig. 3.) plaintiff's draft into money and retaining the same, the defendant accepted it as payment of 3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Om62-LEGISLATIVE the premium then due. The idea of holding it
ndua The idea of holding it! POWER-DELEGATION. as a deposit was manifestly an afterthought, It is within the power of the Legislature suggested by information of Altschuler's death. to create a state insurance board, and to require It is then undisputedly established that, with every fire, tornado, and plate glass insurance full knowledge of the fact that the health cer company and every insurance company granttificate had not been furnished, the company col- | ing insurance against the liability of employés lected and retained, until after the death of the to file with said board a schedule of rates chargassured, the premium which became due on ed by it for such risks, and to prohibit a change July 5, 1893. Having done so-having treated in such rates except after ten days' notice to the contract as valid for the purpose of collect- said board of such contemplated change, and ing premiums-it cannot now, when sued by the authorizing said board, when it shall determine beneficiary, insist that it was yoid from the be that any rate is excessive or unreasonably high, ginning. The company, with full knowledge of or that said rate is inadequate to the safety or all the facts, dealt with the assured, during his soundness of the company granting the same, to lifetime, on the assumption that his contract of direct said company to file a higher or lower insurance was in force, and it cannot, now that rate, commensurate with the risk and further he is dead, be heard to assert that he was de requiring 'that in every case the rate shall be luded by its agents into purchasing and paying reasonable, when provision is made for a review for a still-born policy. To hold that the com of the orders of said board by the courts. pany could escape liability under such circum [Ed. Note,-For other cases, see Constitutionstances would shock the crudest sense of jus
al Law, Cent. Dig. $8 94-102; Dec. Dig. Om
62.] And so we say this defendant cannot re- 4. INSURANCE 4 - STATUTE CREATING ceive and retain these premiums and all the STATE INSURANCE BOARD_VALIDITY. benefits of the contract of insurance without
Chapter 174, Sess. Laws 1915, p. 340, is assuming its burdens.
not violative of the provisions of sections 22, 23,
This, for the reason and 24 of article 6 of the Constitution, creating the evidence discloses that it was accepted by the insurance department and the office of inthe company and retained by it, and never surance commissioner, nor does such act deprive tendered or offered to be returned to any one,
the insurance commissioner of any powers or
duties conferred upon him by the Constitution. and that if defendant instructed the bank to
[Ed. Note.--For other cases, see Insurance, make such tender or offer to return and the
Cent. Dig. $ 4; Dec. Dig. 4.] bank failed to do so, this defendant must suffer the consequences of the neglect of its
1.5. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Omw 26 - CONSTRUC
I TION-GRANT OF POWERS. own agent.
The grant to the Legislature of specific au· We are therefore of opinion that the judg. thority by section 19, art. 9 of the Constitument of the court was right, and should be,
tion to vest in the Corporation Commission ad
ditional powers and duties in connection with and the same is, affirmed. All the Justices
the visitation, regulation, or control of corporaconcur.
tions, or with prescribing and enforcing rates and charges to be observed in the conduct of any business, where the state has the right to pre
scribe the rates and charges in connection thereINSURANCE CO. OF NORTH AMERICA | with, does not deprive the Legislature of its et al. v. WELCH, Ins. Com'r, et al.
power to regulate and control such matters nor
to create the state insurance board and vest it (No. 7581.)
with the powers enumerated in said chapter 174, (Supreme Court of Oklahoma. Nov. 9, 1915. Sess. Laws 1915. Rehearing Denied Jan. 4, 1916.)
[Ed. Note.--For other cases, see Constitution
al Law, Cent. Dig. $ 30; Dec. Dig. Om 26.) (Syllabus by the Court.)
6. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 42 - CONSTITU. 1, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Om 240, 276, 296–
TIONALITY-DETERMINATION BY COURTS. INSURANCE 3 - DUE PROCESS - EQUAL
This court will not pass upon the constituPROTECTION-POWER TO CONTRACT-STATU
tionality of an act of the Legislature nor of any TORY REGULATIONS.
of its provisions until there is presented a propChapter 174, Sess. Laws 1915, p. 340, cre
er case in which it is made to appear that the ating a state insurance board and providing for
person complaining is entitled to the benefits of the regulation and control of rates of premiums
said act or about to be subjected to some of its on insurance, and for other purposes therein
burdens or penalties. specified, is not in violation of any rights of [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Constitutionthe companies affected thereby doing business in al Law, Cent. Dig. $$ 39, 40; Dec. Dig. Om 42.] this state secured to them by the Fourteenth , CoNSTITUTIONAL LAW 240_EQUAI Amend. to the Constitution of the United States,
TECTION - INSURANCE-STATUTORY REGULAand is within the legitimate police power of the
Exempting domestic mutual fire insurance [Ed. Note.--For other cases, see Constitution companies and reciprocal associations and mual Law, Cent. Dig. $8688, 692, 693, 697-699, tual insurance companies and reciprocal associa. 825-838, 840-846; Dec. Dig. Om 240, 276, 296; 1 tions doing business in this state from the proInsurance, Cent.. Dig. $ 3; Dec. Dig. 3.) Tvisions of said act does not render such legisla.