Security Mutual Life Insurance v. Prewitt

Supreme Court

Security Mutual Life Insurance v. Prewitt

200 U.S. 446, 26 S. Ct. 314, 50 L. Ed. 545, 1906 U.S. LEXIS 1489

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedFebruary 19, 1906

Docket178

StatusPublished

Cited by29 cases

This text of 200 U.S. 446 (Security Mutual Life Insurance v. Prewitt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Security Mutual Life Insurance v. Prewitt, 200 U.S. 446, 26 S. Ct. 314, 50 L. Ed. 545, 1906 U.S. LEXIS 1489 (1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Peckham,

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion' of the court.

-It appears that the laws of Kentucky require the annual renewal of the permit to any foreign insurance company, in order that the company may continue'to do business in the State, and without such license the company is prohibited from doing any business therein.

■The writ of error in this case was filed January 27, 1905. and the license was granted July 1,. 1904, and expired by its' terms, if not .sooner revoked, on the first day of July, 1905. The permit, even if illegally revoked prior to that time, became a dead letter on July 1, 1905, so fár as constituting any authority to the company to remain in the State and do business therein. If the court should now assume to cancel the revocation it could not thereby reinstate the permit, which has already expired, and the company would still be without power to do ■business in the State until another permit should be granted. To adjudge that the old- permit remained good until the expiration of the year is to "adjudge an abstract question, as no relief can be now awarded concerning it. The refusal on the part of the Insurance Commissioner to grant authority to plaintiff to transact business after the old permit had expired does not raise a Federal question. Since the writ of error was filed' the permit has ceased to have any effect, and, therefore, an event has occurred which renders it impossible for this court to grant any effectual relief in favor of plaintiff in error. In such case the court will dismiss the writ of error. Mills v. *450 Green, 159 U. S. 651; Tennessee v. Condon, 189 U. S. 64; Jone s v. Montague, 194 U. S. 147.

It would seem to be plain that the cancelation of a revocation of a permit, when the permit itself has become of no effect by virtue of the lapse of time, would be useless business, and would give no practical relief to the company.

Writ dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Peckham,

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion' of the court.

-It appears that the laws of Kentucky require the annual renewal of the permit to any foreign insurance company, in order that the company may continue'to do business in the State, and without such license the company is prohibited from doing any business therein.

■The writ of error in this case was filed January 27, 1905. and the license was granted July 1,. 1904, and expired by its' terms, if not .sooner revoked, on the first day of July, 1905. The permit, even if illegally revoked prior to that time, became a dead letter on July 1, 1905, so fár as constituting any authority to the company to remain in the State and do business therein. If the court should now assume to cancel the revocation it could not thereby reinstate the permit, which has already expired, and the company would still be without power to do ■business in the State until another permit should be granted. To adjudge that the old- permit remained good until the expiration of the year is to "adjudge an abstract question, as no relief can be now awarded concerning it. The refusal on the part of the Insurance Commissioner to grant authority to plaintiff to transact business after the old permit had expired does not raise a Federal question. Since the writ of error was filed' the permit has ceased to have any effect, and, therefore, an event has occurred which renders it impossible for this court to grant any effectual relief in favor of plaintiff in error. In such case the court will dismiss the writ of error. Mills v. *450 Green, 159 U. S. 651; Tennessee v. Condon, 189 U. S. 64; Jone s v. Montague, 194 U. S. 147.

It would seem to be plain that the cancelation of a revocation of a permit, when the permit itself has become of no effect by virtue of the lapse of time, would be useless business, and would give no practical relief to the company.

Writ dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 U.S. 446, 26 S. Ct. 314, 50 L. Ed. 545, 1906 U.S. LEXIS 1489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/security-mutual-life-insurance-v-prewitt-scotus-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack