37 Fla. 564 | Fla. | 1896
This is an original proceeding by mandamus instituted on the relation of Russell H. Hoadley and sev■eral other persons named, to compel the Board of Insurance Commissioners of this State to re-issue to relators, doing business under the associate name of the “South & North American Lloyds,” of the city of New York, a certificate of authority to transact in■surance business in this State until the first day of -October, 1896.
The alternative writ alleges that the relators are citizens and residents of the State of New York, and had associated themselves together under the name of the “South & North American Lloyds,” of the city of New York; that said association was formed for the purpose of transacting a general business of fire and marine insurance in the said State of New York and elsewhere in the United States; and that the association was unincorporated, not having a charter under the laws of New York or any other State or foreign power, but was a voluntary association by agreement .among relators, and known by the name stated. That relators, as such association, desiring to transact their business of insurance in the State of Florida, on a ■date in 1895, prior to the first of October, applied to the Treasurer, Comptroller and Attorney-General of the State, constituting the Board of Insurance Commissioners, for a certificate of authority to carry on insurance business within the State, and after examining into the affairs of said association and upon
The respondents move to quash the writ because it does not show that relators are entitled to the relief prayed; nor that the Board of Commissioners has unlawfully refused to issue a certificate of authority to said association to do business in this State.
The business of relators is that of fire and marine insurance, and the question presented is, whether the provision in section 3, Chapter 4380, acts of 1895, that “no insurance company, association, firm or individual, not of this State, nor agent, nor representatives thereof, shall transact any business of insurance in this State, unless such company, association, firm or individual is possessed of at least one hundred and fifty thousand dollars in value, invested in United States or State bonds, or other bankable, interest-bearing stock issued in the United States, at their market value,” is, as applied to relators, in conflict with the provision of the Constitution of the United States, that “the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges
The revenue act of 1891—appendix to Revised Statutes, page 929—prescribed a privilege license and tax for insurance companies doing business in this State and for agents of such companies. The revenue act of 1893, Chapter 4115, paragraph 5, section'9, prescribed a privilege license and tax for ‘ ‘each insurance company doing business in this State,, including corporations of associations engaged in the business of insuring accidents to the person, acting as surety upon bonds, guaranteeing the fidelity of employees, and insuring employers against liability for accidents to employees, and including associations formed upon the plan known as ‘Lloyds’.” The language of the act of 1895, Chapter 4322, section 9, paragraph 5, is “each insurance company, association, firm or individual doing business in this State, including corporations or associations engaged in the business of insuring accidents to the person, acting as surety upon bonds, guaranteeing the fidelity of employees, and insuring employers against liability for accidents to employees, shall pay to the Treasurer,” etc.
It is evident that there is nothing in the terms or policy of either the revenue act of 1895, or the amendatory act of that year, in reference to insurance companies, found in Chapter 4380, to prevent unincorporated associations or an individual, whether in this State or not, from obtaining a certificate of authority to engage in the business of insurance here upon a compliance with the requirements of said acts; but, on the contrary, they are expressly authorized by said acts to do such business. Section 3 of the act of 1895 clearly requires that before any company, association,
The alternative writ alleges that relators were citizens and residents of the State of New York, and were unincorporated, and that their association existed by voluntary agreement among themselves, without a charter from any State or foreign power. The motion to quash, being in the nature of a demurrer, admits the statements of the writ to be true, and, this being so, we can not consider relators as existing in a corporate or quasi corporate capacity. The sole question presented, then, is whether the Legislature can prescribe discriminating conditions upon citizens of other States doing an insurance business in this State not imposed upon citizens here engaging in the same kind of business? In speaking of the clause in the Federal Constitution already quoted,—Article IV, section 2,— it is said in Paul vs. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168: “It was undoubtedly the object of the. clause in question to place the citizens of each State upon the same footing with citizens of other States, so far as the advantages resulting from citizenship in those States are concerned. It relieves them from the disabilities of alienage in other States; it inhibits discriminating legislation against them by other States; it gives them the right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them; it insures to them in other States the same freedom possessed by the citizens of those States in the acquisition and enjoyment of property and in the pursuit of
It may be proper to state that we are not dealing, in this opinion, with the power of the Legislature to exclude entirely, or prescribe the conditions upon which foreign corporations may do business in this State (Paul vs. Virginia, Hooper vs. California, supra); nor do we consider the question of the right of the State to exclude entirely her own citizens, or those of other States, from the business of insurance here. Commonwealth vs. Vrooman, 164 Pa. St. 306, 30 Atl. Rep. 217, 25 L. R. A. 250. The State has expressly author
The motion to quash will be overruled. Ordered accordingly.