*1 110 OCTOBER- 1886.
Statement Facts. PHILADELPHIA FIRE ASSOCIATION v. NEW YORK. n ERROR TO THE SÜPREME COURT OK THE STATE OP NEW YORK. 1886.
Argued October Decided November Pennsylvania A. corporation began doing fire insurance business in New York 1S72, in year year receiving continued it till afterwards authority proper officer, certificates from the a statute of New passed Chapter York York, in 1853. 694-of the laws New 1865as by 1875,provided amended c. 60 of the laws whenever laws require other State should from a New York fire com- insurance „ greater pany.a require license fee than the laws of New York should then State, from the fire insurance of sucli other all such com- panies pay equal such.other State should York a license fee New imposed by In'1873,. companies. such other on New York Pennsylvania passed every requiring a law fro-m „tax another prerequisite yearly authority, as a a to a certificate of cent, per premiums of 3 Pennsylvania during on the received year. preceding required In the insurance officer of New York cent, Pennsylvania corporation fee, pay, per a a tax of license premiums on the it in New York in 1881. In a suit received corporation, tax, York, in a court of such New to recover set was up defence, unlawful, corporation yvas. a the tax because “person” “jurisdiction” York, equal pro- a within the and “the New ” it, tection of the had been denied to in violation of a clause laws Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of United States. On a judgment highest York, writ of error to -of review of the court New Held, overruling application, had no defence: that such clause be- cause, defendant, corporation, being was not within the compliance on a New until admitted imposed, namely, payment with the condition of admission of the required tax as a license fee. . The business carried on York was not a transac- tion of commerce. opinion York, duly highest court of New authenticated proper officer, record, compli- with the transmitted to this court Pule, determining ance with 8th -was examined aid whether question against that court decided such Federal the defendant.
This was a writ of error to the Court of the State Supreme of New York. Under the Code of provisions § Civil Procedure of New of the State of New People York and the Fire Association of Philadelphia, Pennsyl
PHILA. FIRE v. NEW YORK. ASSOCIATION Ill of Pacts.
Statement to a vania difference parties corporation, of an action, be the case subject agreed upon might of the facts statement on which the controversy containing *2 submission of it and -written presented depended, so that the York, of New became Court controversy Supreme forth in The material facts set the case were an action. ' ! these: The Fire Association of is a The defendant, Philadelphia, and in the and created year by organized for the under the laws of the State of trans- Pennsylvania, fire and insurance, of the business of action having prin- (cid:127) In of business in the the City Philadelphia. cipal place established, York, an year agency is here maintained. No raised which has ever since with all the but that it has requirements uniformly complied fire insur- and the laws of this State conditions imposed by upon maintain- ance from other States' and establishing companies of the 'tax now this State, ing agencies except payment it in 1881 risks received by dispute, upon premiums located wthinthe State of New and .is the sub- which and of this has received from controversy, year year ject from the Insur- authority Superintendent certificates ' of this ance to be issued under State, Department provided c. 46&of the Actj laws of and the Acts subsequent thereof. amendatory “ The Act of the State of New People passed fifths c. '694 of the May three being"present, being entitled laws ‘An Act relation to the deposits to be and made, and other taxes, fines, fees, required insurance' of sister States,’ as by charges -payable companies the Act of amended c. follo-ws, provides ‘ viz. : Whenever the or laws of future other any existing United States shall of insurance com- require or under the laws of incorporated by panies, organized and in such other or State, having agencies in such State for the. of securities thereof, any agents deposit or or otherwise,. any payment policy-holders license fees, for certificates of taxes, fines, authority, penalties, of Pacts. Statement than, amount or such otherwise, required greater pur- similar of other the then from States poses companies laws of this and in all then, case, State, existing every of such States or heretofore companies having establishing, an and State, shall be established, agency agencies are for a like make same pur- hereby required deposit Insurance and to pose pay Department fines, of said for taxes, Superintendent Department penalties; amount fees, otherwise, certificates of license authority, amount of such equal charges payments such State this State laws of Insur- and the thereof; Superintendent agents authorized to remit the fees ance any hereby Department laws, he is collect required existing charges collect under and virtue of as he is except required that no discrimination shall be this Act, however, provided, the same made in of one over favor *3 State.’ an Act 4,18v3, “The of April by passed State Pennsylvania, ‘ as viz.: Section 10. follows, in
and ever enacted force, since in this state of as or solicitor No shall act any person agent state, of or government, another insurance company until the to risks, in manner whatever provisions relating any with on'the this have been part of Act complied been to said and there has association, granted or company a of the certificate commissioner, association, or by company the or association is showing company authority, it shall be state; to transact business authorized association, or authorized every company duty make to the in this report transact each under year, month commissioner January the entire thereof, or showing oath secretary president character amount of every description premiums in this or association state, received said company during a or fraction of year year ending thirty-first said were December whether premiums day preceding, notes, or in form of credits or received any money the state a for into other substitute and pay treasury money, FIRE NEW YORK. PHILA. ASSOCIATION' Statement Facts. three centum said
tax of and the com- upon premiums; per shall not have missioner renewal of “the po>ver grant, of said or association until the tax certificate afore- the state is into treasury;’ said paid 1881 the defendant,
“In the its authorized through year received for insurance agents located fire, loss or upon property injury to the the State of New amount York, premiums aggregate Insurance De $196,170.22. Superintendent the defendant New York claimed partment ought for tax, 1881, $1818.45, with pay, year proper interest, amount at arrived by deducting cent, $5885.10, would (which tax of three on per the sum of which the $196,170.22,) $4036.65, defendant, as had Pennsylvania tax as a on corporation, paid premiums, laws of during New York force in 1881, . other than the Act of amended the Act of 1875. The case then states, that ‘the between the controversy to., is, as to whether parties the defendant hable pay any tax to the of the Insurance Superintendent Department the State, the said received premiums year ’ £ defendant, if and, what any, amount; claims that it is not liable to the amount, plaintiffs first, said Act of insisting, as amended the Act of and not void, unconstitutional a. exercise of legitim-fie further legislative power,’ making claims toas the amount due from it if the Act question, is- ‘the valid; court for submitted decision of facts whether is, statement foregoing is. defendant hable- to to the plaintiffs, pay the whole, or if what superintendent, and, any, ai-y, parr *4 the’ $1848.45; of is. entered judgment to its decision.” according
The case been the agreed Court having Supreme heard term, rendered general law, required by judgment to the effect -that the defendant was not hable pay any - of such amount claimed the Two- part superintendent. of the three the in that court concurred judges holding judg-
VOL. CXIX —á ' TERM, 114 Argument for Plaintiff in Error. The of dissented. third opinions The
ment. majority the record. The held accompany and minority majority of York were New void question statutes because the Constitution New York, in conflict with and did not under the Constitution discuss of the arising any question The differed United States. with -the ma- dissenting judge them, and further Said: adjudged jority claim I with the “Nor can this statute is agree contrary Amendment the Fourteenth Constitution of to. United States.” . .
The
to the Court
having appealed
plaintiffs
Appeals
court reversed the
York, that
New
judgment
Supreme
for the
for $1848.45,
and rendered
Court,
judgment
plaintiffs
and remitted the record to
costs,
with interest
to that .effectwas
entered,.
where
Court,
judgment
Supreme
writ of
defendant
error.
the .
brought
review which
.to
92
Y. 4511,
N.
after
decision,
in its
Court
Appeals,
majority
'taken
judges
the view
overruling
statute under the
as to
Court
Supreme
validity
to consider its constitu-
New
proceeded
Constitution
Amendment
of the Fourteenth
that clause
tionality
commands
no State
Constitution
to the Federal
its-
jurisdiction
equal
shall
any person
“deny
that clause' had no
held
It
laws.”
defendant, because,
rights
application
not within
it was
corporation,
a com-
the State,
admitted
until was
which the State
of admission
the conditions
pliance
impose.
had
imposed,
cited: Santa
Ghoate,
plaintiff
Mr.
II.
Joseph
118 U. S.
Pail/road,
v. Southern
Olara County
Pacific
13
Railroad,
Mateo
v. Southern
San
396;
County
Pacific
Southern
v.
Santa
122;
Fed.
County
Clara
Hep.
Pacific
RaAl'oad
391-404; Eentuchy
18 Fed.
Railroad,
Eep.
>
Ex
v.
Schollenberger,
parte
v.
106 U. S.
10-13 St. Clair
Ex
;
Cox,
35Ó;
defendant Elmwood V. error, cited; Money, y. Gallatin 100 U. S. Post v. 47; County, Supervi- Fairfield sors, y. 105 S. 13 Pet. 519; XT. Bank Earle, Augusta 667; y. 8 Wall. Paul Lns. Co. Y. Massar 168; Virginia, Liverpool y. 10 Wall. 113 chusetts, 566; Co. Ferguson, (Jooper Mfg y. IT. S. Nathan 8 How. Morse v. 727; Louisiana, 73; Home v, Lns. 30 Wis. 20 Wad. Drake Co., 496; error, 445; S. C. 40 Wis. v. 40 Wis. 175; 220; Continental Co. Doyle, Doyle, y. y. Continental Lns. 94 Co., U. S. Doyle 535; Coster, Runyan 14 Pet. Dra/w 20 122; v. Covington Co. Shepherd, Bridge y. 233; How. Railroad Co. 5; 104 U. S. Koontz, McCullough 4 Wheat. Maryland, on 430; State Tana LLeld Foreign 15 Bonds, Ex Mis- 300; 9; Wall. parte Kinney, Hughes, Lewis, souri Tux H. S. Railroad 22, 31; Kentucky 115 U. Cases, S. 321, 337.
MR. Justice the case above after .as. Blatchford, stating delivered the the court. reportedj opinion The defendant the Fourteenth claims benefit of here the. and a as to whether Amendment, has occurred record no There for our review. presents point the claim would pleadings, obvious to look for place 11.6
Opinion of tlie Court. But all that is there . statement of facts. is, agreed said the defendant insists statute “unconstitutional and void and not a exercise of legislative power.” legitimate *6 in both considered, was Court and the question Supreme the statute, Court of as to of under the validity Appeals, of New a law made to York, for being depend Constitution of a its on the state, thus an operation legislation foreign exercise of This contention is illegitimate legislative power. the words of the if statement, within it de and, fairly agreed on that statement determine whether the pended-wholly a Federal some doubt record raises exist. But question, might in in of was said Murdock v. view what Wall. Memphis, in v. United States Co., Gross U. Mortgage S. and in Adams & Missouri County Burlington Rail think 112 U. S. we that we are at Co., road liberty of into Court look which, the-opinion Appeals^ copy officer, authenticated transmitted to us proper duly with our 8th for record, Buie, with compliance pur what was decided that court. determining pose aiding that the court it not From decided opinion appears only all other than the defendant Federal questions against two under the Constitution of raised, which were including it the Federal but also decided New question the court had decided its favor to. If one of referred any to the whole wdiich went cause of action, the other questions have been no there would Federal necessity considering it But as decision’of became was, question question. of the was case, to the consid fully necessary disposition but as the defendant. not sua ered, sgoonte, point presented the Fourteenth which Amendment, The went provision that no State shall 1868, is, deny into effect July, laws.” its within jurisdiction equal person arises whether is, which The first coi’poration the State of within ivas a jurisdiction person and Avithin Avithreference controversy subject the Amendment. meaning if it was on the Avithin the defendant, assumption it Yoik, was, the State of Ne>v though foreign v. NEW YORK. ASSOCIATION FIRE PHILA.
Opinion Court. so entitled to the benefit of the “a person,” corporation, within such was contends jurisdiction. Amendment, an that-it established is, agency within The argument that it com- it had ever since maintained; State and condi- all the requirements from year, year plied, fire insur- of the State on the laws tions imposed in the it received State; ance doing from the Superin- certificates authority year year statute; Insurance Department, provided by tendent within circumstances, those was legally that, that, permis- jurisdiction; from 1872 the State, continuously sion to. and unlawful there, on while it, unequal come Act of 1865' did not the New York and that
burden; until the Pennsyl- as to into effect Pennsylvania corporations had time the defendant at which Act vania of 1878 passed, the State. been year already take that view of the case. In Paul unable to we are
But *7 a Term, 1868, Wall. at December statute 8 v. Virginia, incor insurance not every company required Yirginia busi as a condition of on should, carrying Yirginia by porated treasurer, securities with the State ness in deposit Yirginia, and made a another statute license; obtain and afterwards - for an to act in as for offence Yirginia agent person penal such not without incorporated by Yirginia, as without A acted such agent license. person having statute, been convicted and fined under the and license, clause of there had no of that held that been violation Court of the United States Constitution Article § “ shall be enti the citizens of each State which provides of citizens in the several' and immunities to all tled privileges Article 1, nor violation clause States;” § for “to commerce with regulate Congress power giving ‘ an and the several States.” view nations among eign are not citizens within was, nounced corporations immu and on the cited, clause first ground privileges States, each the several nities secured citizens States, latter to the citizens of the which are common are those M- 00W
Opinion the Court. tbeir laws, virtue their Constitutions citizens; that, as a created a- State is a creation of law, mere local even the of its existence recognition - States, the enforcement of its contracts made on therein, of those —a depend purely States comity , which never extended comity where existence of the cor- or the exercise of its to their poration powers “prejudicial their, or And interests repugnant policy.” court, speak Mr. Justice said: Field, no absolute ing “Having in other but States, recognition depending recognition ,of and the enforcement its contracts their it fol assent, lows,.as matter of -that' such course, assent bemay granted think terms- -and upon, conditions those States may proper exclude the impose. They may foreign corporation entirely, restrict its they may business to localities, particular exact such for the they may security performance- contracts with their citizens in their will best judgment pro mote the interest. The whole matter rests their dis public cretion.” As to the commerce power Congress regulate the several court said, while the among power conferred included commerce carried on as well by corporations as that carried on a' individuals, insur policy issuing ance is not a transaction of commerce.” This decision only followed the laid down in the earlier cases of Bank principles 13 Pet. Augusta Earle, Ins. Co. Lafayette v. French, How. 404. The same were followed Ducat v. rulings Chicago, Wall. where it was said that the aof State to dis power criminate between her own and those of other States desirous of business within transacting established, State to being clearly determine belonged toas the nature or of discrimination, *8 to degree “subject only such on limitations as found in the sovereignty may fundamental law of the Hnion.”
Other cases to the same effect are
Ins. Co.
Liverpool
Massachusetts,
PHILA.
Opinion of the Court. of statute,'c. as New a As early fire every company incorporated required a State or as any foreign government, prerequisite any should file an State, business to appoint doing ‘and on to be a served, whom ment of an process'was attorney its condition, desig statement procure .pecuniary that the officer certificate nated authority stating' public of the statute, had with all the requisitions complied ' state- to the renewal from also year year required such1, investments; ment and evidence provided com on satisfied that the officer, capital public should secure, and in and its securities vestments-remained pany the certificate of A violation furnish a renewal of authority. act, This was made a offence. penal provisions is-still force. amendments, immaterial the State of New came into This corporation Pennsylvania do the consent York to business by received and has for a
Act license with a year, granted It is within the run for a such license year. annually, con- license, under such subjéct year any given The State, having ditions statute. prescribed by power the conditions exclude has power change entirely, a con- future, and as at for the time, impose admission a license a further as tax, tax, dition the of hew payment license, for the fee fee. If it prerequisite imposes fee, licensé until future, corporation, pays It is is not admitted State or within jurisdiction. not at the with consent outside, threshold, admission, seeking cor- The Act of had when yet been given. passed first amend- established the State. poration agency mént of 1875 of 1865 Act- only by changed giving the fees and charges superintendent power remitting Therefore, to be laws. required collected then existing as a was at all after times, prerequi- subject, same site to its to do in New power York on license fee its own.State thereafter impose might into the business in By going Pennsylvania. doing to such York it assented prerequisite State New *9 120
Dissenting Opinion: Harlan, J. a. condition of its admission within’ the jurisdiction York. It not be of within such could jurisdiction, until should receive the consent the State to its entrance there- consent, under the new could provisions, not be given until as license tax, fee the future, should be id. pa is not to be from
It we have implied, said, that the anything of a. to power State exclude a foreign corporation doing business within its limits is to be to an regarded extending interference with the transaction of. commerce between that State and other States created by corporation one of such other States.
Judgment affirmed. Me. Justice Habían dissenting.
Under the decision rendered, State of just New York is to of another permitted subject corporation State, within her to limits consent, taxes to its higher respect business than is there similar corporations States.
At last term this when court, counsel were about to enter case of Santa argument Clara County — 118 Railroad, Southern U. S. involving Pacific of a devised one of the validity system States for the — taxation railroad of a certain class the Chief observed: The court Justice does not wish to hear argument on the whether the provision the Fourteenth Amendment Constitution, forbids a State to within deny jurisdiction person equal protection Ve all of the these are laws, corporations. opin applies it does.” is was said This, true, corpo ion'that regard was assailed State whose rations of the legislation particular that a it is clear but unconstitutional; equally her consent, in another of one State, doing ” that business, at “person be deemed, respect least latter State, meaning the Fourteenth Amendment. of the laws occur may denial equal NEW YORK.
PHILA. FIRE ASSOCIATION Harlan, Opinion: .Dissenting J. occur in It most often
various will enforcement of ways. individual is taxes. An denied the laws equal imposing pro- if his tection property subjected laws than is like taxation of other imposed upon property higher *10 in the same aSo, individuals is- community. corporation when its is denied property subjected by laws is whose more State, burdensome organized, taxation than upon imposed corporations- domestic a' same class. of one So, also, corporation State, doing in another business, State, the latter’s con- agents, is denied the of the laws if its sent, business equal protection there is taxation than is subjected higher imposed upon business of like from other States. These propo- sitions seem to me to be are indisputable. They necessarily involved concession that like corporations, individuals, entitled to the are of the laws. equal protection ' The in error is a plaintiff In Pennsylvania. it established and has ever since maintained an agency in the State of New York. It had its there when the' agents taxes for here were assessed. question, . The laws of New York certain conditions prescribe prece- to the of a dent fire insurance from another right to transact business there. It must a certain possess amount of actual an capital; appoint State, attorney service whom is process be deemed a valid per- service sonal corporation” action “upon n policy issued or liability contracted while such corporation transacted business” there; file the insurance department a certified of its copy charter, with a statement, together verified the oath of its chief officer and secretary, showing name where company, amount of its place located, and assets, the capital extent to which its real is encum- estate bered, the and market par value of all shares of stock held by it, estimated value of its bonds, and other mortgages, securities, the extent of its indebtedness, amount of its losses, and adjusted or incurred and in unpaid process the losses adjustment, and the disputed, existing against claims it. It is also that no provided shall be transacted ' ' 1886..
Dissenting Opinion: Harlan, J. tbe State from another State, .the agent any company while its to the extent of cent. twenty capital impaired per It further annual from such statement, requires in detail the items their capital, showing making up deductions to be made It was made the therefrom. first. duty, of the State superin- comptroller, subsequently — tendent of statute these requirements first thus issue (cid:127) —to complied company, seeking admission into the a certificate its lawful showing transact, business within her limits. N. Y., 1853, Laws of c. c. and c. c. 6, 1, 1871, 888; Laws 466'; 367, 5; § § c. Laws of c. 1874, 331, 1; Laws § § . thesé That the error statutory conformed plaintiff for the trans- admitted into New York provisions, from which case, action of business is shown by; agreed that it with all re- “has uniformly complied appears ' this State the laws of conditions quirements *11 insurance fire from States establishing upon companies in State, this except payment maintaining agencies it in in the tax now 1881 by received dispute upon premiums and which of New York, risks located within the State upon received from of this and has year is the subject controversy, the superintendent authority year certificates he issued State, insurance provided department of laws c. 466 act, subsequent wider acts amendatory thereofP (cid:127) that this can it be said facts, admitted how of these In view in to its not, corporate respect'" Pennsylvania corporation of New York year during business, jurisdiction of one ? That a accrued tax in corporation when the dispute latter’s consent, State in another by business State, doing her insurance certificate the official evidenced given hable, laws, precisely with in conformity department her courts, into to be are, brought as domestic corporations attorney its duly appointed service upon process through or transacted liability business in reference agent, deemed "within to be jurisdiction incurred it there, In Ex Schollen- clear. parte seems to me that entirely v. NEW FIRE YORK. 123 ASSOCIATION PHILA. Opinion Harlan, Dissenting : J. it insur 96 U. S. was decided.'that
berger, under the- business ance Pennsylvania, company, doing as a of a statute of that Commonwealth authority requiring, to its an there, condition judi agreement precedent same its should have the effect cial served upon agent process within the was, served as if meaning upon corporation, of. “found” in State so as to act of Congress Statps to the courts of the United sitting give "of suits there that State company, brought its service of sub agent. process upon accompanied 106 U. S. Cox, considered St. Clair was again ject no sound reason it was said that there Avas 357, where why, an business in the case of insurance another company doing as those referred to, statutes such State, by agent, (cid:127) in the latter not be deemed to should represented and held for its and liabilities responsible obligations agent, incurred. See also Railroad 12 Wall. Harris, there Co. Co.v. Wall. ; Whitton, Railway It was said error entered argument plaintiff York act derived from the of 1865, knoAvledge, if thereafter New York insurance Pennsylvania subjected taxes than the latter State higher imposed upon of the same class business in Pennsylvania corporations doing the taxes levied it Avouldbe NeAV correspondingly therefore, increased; entrance of the argued, plaintiff into New York Avas in error to the reserAmd subject right thus to State increase the taxes business. The idea is embodied in the that New York made same suggestion from and after it a fire prerequisite, of another to transact that it should taxes, such increased however NeAV pay *12 be in excess of the taxes there much might they imposed upon same class from the States. remaining 1. it is submitted: That no such was Now, obligation imposed in as a the statute error upon plaintiff prerequisite York and its to enter New transact business there. The right case not that the only agreed department shoAvs State, in York has its to do business that right certified 1886. Harlan, Opinion:
Dissenting J. Act of but tbat the certificate was made provided .the acts thereof. there no Besides, 1853 and is amendatory statute that clause withhold or directing department the failure a certificate or refusal of the com- to revoke upon increased taxes. The these validity pay regularity pany not was not now questioned argument, .certificate and there is not a word the statute to the effect disputed, of these increased taxes is & payment prerequisite to remain the State and transact right it Indeed, is evident business. State purposely .-avoided to enter establishing any prerequisite right limits. She after seeks, only admitting plaintiff error and its to do it to business, certifying right subject taxation in New York to question. power tax this increased cannot the fact surely depend upon impose would do in the that she notice of what she gave contingency notice in the Act of 1805. Such neither creates a expressed' could not otherwise to do which consti- power makes it the of the nor error do, duty plaintiff tutionally exaction. At the real to an last, to submit illegal can be sub- is, whether Pennsylvania corporations presented taxes in New than are there higher jected same class from other States. upon corporations exclude It is said that a State from its may altogether another admit it State, borders may corporation terms or conditions as she elect to It may prescribe. to that effect true that was quite general language employed 8 Wall. where the Paul Virginia, only question to be determined as to the of a statute necessary validity that before an insurance not Virginia, providing company, there, should on business State, it. incorporated by carry must obtain a license therefor, deposit of a treasurer, bonds specified security engagements, character and amount. In the course opinion of that of one was said that disposed question, no in other States, absolute having recognition but itsof for such and the enforcement depending recognition contracts of course, their as a matter assent, follows, *13 v. NEW
(cid:127)PHILA, ASSOCIATION YORK. FIRE (cid:127) Harlan, Opinion: Dissenting J. such, condi assent be terms and
that such may granted upon think those States to tions as They may proper impose. may. the restrict its exclude they foreign corporation entirely; may localities, exact such secu particular they may of its contracts with their citizens as for rity performance will best interests. The in their promote public judgment that in their I submit it But, whole matter-rests discretion.” doctrine of this that the terms and condi court, is the settled ,be must not Constitution tions so prescribed repugnant or inconsistent with States, United any right granted 10 Wall. or secured instrument. In Chicago, Ducat it was said Mr. for Nelson, Justice speaking of discrimination to the nature or court, that, respect degree a State between her own may make “ other it to the State to determine, those of belongs to such limitations on her bemay subject only sovereignty It so in the fundamental law of the Union.” was de found where 20 Wall. Morse, cided Insurance Co. of Wisconsin was statute the question validity of fire insurance com to the admission into that State relating Besides the condition States. incorporated panies in Wisconsin should some attorney they designate be served, could whom against company process an one that it file in the further should office agree proper that it not remove to the courts ment would stipulating local courts. suit States United brought .in An of New York established agency conditions; in all with these Wisconsin,' complied respects of the validity it filed the In required support agreement. conditions, the State language those relied very court was from Paul v. above Virginia. But quoted be understood must careful say language facts case reference “ whether to be which was stated decided, simply a license to take insurance company might require for pay the transaction of its business, security giving announce, further ment taken to of its debts.” Care was not in in Paul v. Virginia general language employed -TERM,' Harlan, Opinion: Dissenting J.
tended to La Ins. Co.v. French impair Fayette language 18 How. Mr. Justice 404, 407, where the court, speaking said: Curtis, A Indiana can transact created *14 business Ohio or with the of consent, only express implied, the latter State. This consent be may accompanied conditions as Ohio fit to and these condi think may impose, tions must be deemed and States and valid effectual this to the court; are not Con provided, they repugnant stitution and laws of the United or inconsistent States, those rules of and law au which secure public jurisdiction of each thority others, State from encroachment of all or that of natural forbids condemnation with principle which justice out these defence.” was opportunity Upon grounds held, Insurance Co. v. that the Wisconsin Morse, statute, so far of other States to required to, would have stipulate not exercise suits they right them removed to courts, the national void, equally because it created of a an'obstruction to the exercise privilege the Constitution and laws of the United granted by and tended to oust the courts of the Union of conferred them. Much that was said in that case is one. After pertinent courts present observing would not enforce an a citizen of between New agreement York and citizen of that the former Wisconsin, would, in no event, resort to the Federal courts Wisconsin for the sitting his or an between rights property, agreement the same whatever parties, consideration, citizen York would in no when called into case, courts, either of Wisconsin or of the Federal courts in that sitting State, demand a his determiné but jury rights property, would submit such to arbitration or to the decision of a rights the court said: see difference in single judge, “We no princi between the cases and the before us. ple case supposed Every citizen is entitled to all resort to the courts and countiy, to invoke the all the laws or all courts protection' those afford.” may The court further said that the of the in right surance to'remove suit was “denied to it State court on the it had made the ground re agreement NEW , YORK. ASSOCIATION FIÍLE
PHILA. Harlan, Opinion: J. .Dissenting and State authorized. the statute ferred to, We not are able .to agreement. making required this on this principle, agreement requisition, fliptiugnish of an individual citizen made the case a similar one the1 the same has protec A right New York. same as natural citizen, of the laws right ‘ap tion an indi The all the courts' country. rights peal - that of a this are not corporation. vidual respect, superior, "Wisconsincan its own The State regulate however, its own citizens, subordination, affairs of of an of the United States. . Constitution requirement would be like this from their own corporations agreement under the because no ulmén, brutvm they right possess f A whether citizen, United States. Constitution in this not natural possesses per corporate, respect must to one of own citizens. There necessarily taining the status of the a difference between two respect.” *15 and the difference between Insurance Co.v. Morse The only the New York is, case corporation present former (cid:127) in it not its con- that would exercise writing, expressly agreed, it into the courts suits stitutional removing privilege an received while the of the Union Pennsylvania corporation n official in New York certificate of its to transact business right from act of that that State would with notice derived from date of statute —claim after 1873—the Pennsylvania than from it taxes she like imposed upon corporations higher States limits her con doing remaining its If the error, sent. plaintiff by merely maintaining agen is to be held to to cies New have impliedly agreed is than to such increased more taxation, submit anything that it would assert a secured an not implied agreement right % it it the Constitution the United States Can be that to to a is claim benefit of the constitu corporation estopped to it the of the laws tional provision seeming equal protection entered and remained State because a voluntarily simply to it and has a statute which enacted denying protection Is to like from same State ? right corporations less valuable or fundamental than protection any right ' Opinion: Harlan, J. Dissenting - remove suit into the courts of the Union for trial? ’Will it be held that an not ex- express by corporation agreement ercise the latter is void and not but enforceable, that a right local statute of the laws to a equal cor- denying will be because that osme poration upheld, simply within the which' assumed to jurisdiction make fromjher denial, received officers, conform- acting with her laws, a certificate its ity transact business right there ? Will effect be in one case to what given (erroneously, .1 is an called to surrender a constitu- think) implied agreement tional while the other to right, agreement sur- express render a held constitutional to be invalid?
Even if were conceded that provides laws, her own for the organization, corporations transaction of kind could of business, exclude every arbitrarily from her limits similar from the corporations States, remaining and- declare all contracts made within her from other be void—concessions to be corporations made fer the of this case—it would only purposes not follow that she could of other States, subject busi- corporations doing ness within her limits under a from license the proper depart- than ment, taxes she higher imposes upon of the same class from the States. The remaining plaintiff ^ error been in 1881 having lawfully cannot denied there the agents, laws equal protection because the State which created it have may adopted system of taxation different from that devised New-York. The in its if case, same as legal aspects, precisely Pennsyl- vania had never the statute of but 1813, New York passed had, in that fire insurance year, imposed upon taxes than- she Pennsylvania similar higher imposed upon *16 from other States. corporations would seem to be the result of the decision this case,
It New York rates of taxation may prescribe varying of upon the corporations remaining thirty-seven within her rate she jurisdiction, chooses—:the from each State corporations from tire rate estab- differing lished for of the same class from all other States, corporations CO.' NEW YORK.
HOME INSURANCE of ITacts. Statement rate in of States and tbe respect corporations the than her own of she imposes npon corporations higher commercial would be a of same class. Such legislation species be hostile State and would others, one warfare by the Four- of the Constitution, to the whole particularly spirit all within the teenth Amendment, persons jurisdic- securing of the laws. States the tion equal protection respective I feel stated, which have been the reasons obliged For the court. of assent withhold opinion judgment my YORK. COMPANY HOME INSURANCE NEW THE STATE OE NEW YORK. TO THE SUPREME COURT OE ERROR 1886. 1886. October 15, Decided November Argued upon “corporate a tax statute of York The State ” quarter of of one or business franchise mill, cent, per upon capital dividend of six 'stock for-each one cent, exemption Company claimed per The Home Insurance or over. capital was invested in bonds so much of this tax as. they which, by Congress were acts under which the United States exempt proceeding to enforce issued, taxation. In a from State were tax, Supreme gave judg- Court of New York' the collection recovery, judgment affirmed the Court for its ment judgment a divided Appeals This court affirms State. court. Court This was a commenced proceeding Supreme in error to recover tax New York plaintiff imposed upon of that Act of the provisions Legislature 1880, as amended Juno Laws of- c. 542, Act of 361. following Laws of c. May are the material Act of relating provisions controversy. the laws hundred and five forty-two Chapter Seotion ‘ An act to provide hundred and entitled eighty, eighteen certain corpo- taxes for the use of
for raising VOL. CXIX 9—