State ex rel. Fishback v. Universal Service Agency

151 P. 768, 87 Wash. 413, 1915 Wash. LEXIS 896
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 25, 1915
DocketNo. 12483
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 151 P. 768 (State ex rel. Fishback v. Universal Service Agency) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Fishback v. Universal Service Agency, 151 P. 768, 87 Wash. 413, 1915 Wash. LEXIS 896 (Wash. 1915).

Opinion

Fullerton, J.

This action was instituted on the relation of the insurance commissioner of the state of Washington against the Universal Service Agency, a corporation, organized under the laws of this state, to forfeit its corporate franchise and wind up its affairs. A demurrer was interposed and sustained to the complaint, and from an adverse judgment rendered thereon, the relator appeals. The grievance specially complained of in the complaint is that the respondent corporation has been, and is now, doing an insurance business without complying with the statutes regulating the doing of such business. The nature of the business conducted by the respondent can best be illustrated by setting forth the actual transactions, and this we do, although necessitating quotations from the complaint at a somewhat tedious length.

As initiatory of its business, the respondent entered into separate contracts with a dealer in shoes, a dealer in groceries, a dealer in harness, a dealer in clothing, certain dealers in drugs, and a physician, whereby the dealers agreed to enter into a contract to sell their wares, and the physician agreed to enter into a contract to sell his services, to such persons as the corporation might direct; the dealers, at stated discounts from their regular rates, and the physician, for a consideration to be paid him by the corporation. The contract with the dealers in drugs is typical of the contracts with the other dealers, and we set the same out in full:

[415]*415“This memorandum of agreement made this 24th day of April, A. D. 1914, by and between the Universal Service Agency, a corporation of the state of Washington, party of the first part, and W. V. Blackwell and E. A. Isaacson, co-partners doing business under the firm name and style of Reading Drug Co. Central Drug Co. a corporation and Fred L. Janeck, as parties of the second part,
“Witnesseth: That whereas, the party of the first part proposes to act as agent of various persons in securing for them certain privileges and benefits, and
“Whereas, the parties of the second part, being each engaged in business as retail druggists in the city of North Yakima, and the custom of said persons will be of benefit to them, and will reduce their advertising expenses.
“Now Therefore, the said second parties, in consideration of the premises, agree that they and each of them will contract direct with all persons complying with the stipulations required by the first party, to fill for said persons and the members of their families dependent on them, any and all prescriptions of physicians that may be presented by the holder or any member of his family dependent on him, at a flat and uniform rate of thirty-five cents ($0.35) per prescription, for a period of one year from and after the date of said contract, provided, it be delivered in the year 1914; said contract to be evidenced by a printed form delivered to the holder by the party of the first part as follows, to-wit:
“ ‘We, the Reading Drug Co. a co-partnership, Central Drug Co. a corporation, and Fred L. Janeck, do hereby agree that we and each of us will fill for the holder and the members of his family dependent on him, any and all prescriptions of physicians that may be presented by the holder or any member of his family dependent on him, at a flat and uniform rate of thirty-five cents ($0.35) per prescription, for a period of one year from and after the date and delivery of this contract No.....dated and delivered this .... day of.........., A. D. 1914.
“ ‘The delivery of this contract and continuing compliance with the stipulations required by the Universal Service Agency, hereto attached and made a part hereof, shall constitute an acceptance of this offer by the holder, the sufficiency of the consideration therefor being admitted. . .
[416]*416“It being understood and agreed that a printed copy of the foregoing form, when delivered by the party of the first part and accepted by the holder, shall constitute an irrevocable offer to the holder thereof, provided that he has complied with the stipulations required of him by the party of the first part, and compliance with such stipulations shall constitute an acceptance of the terms thereof by the holder. The said second parties hereby admit the sufficiency of the consideration therefor and their liability to the holder for any breach thereof.”

The contract with the physician was in the following form:

“This Memorandum of Agreement made this 15th day of April, 1914, by and between the Universal Service Agency, a corporation of the state of Washington, party of the first part, and Dr. H. B. Pratt, a licensed physician and surgeon as party of the second part,
“Witnesseth: That Whereas, the party of the first part proposes to act as agent of various persons in securing for them certain privileges and benefits and among other things, desires to procure to said various persons, reduced rates for medical services and to act as agent for certain physicians in collecting their fees,
“Now Therefore, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, the said party of the first part agrees that he will contract directly with all persons complying with the stipulations required by the first party and will render to them and to the members of their families dependent on them, as their names shall appear upon the card furnished by the party of the first part, certain limited professional services hereinafter defined, for a period of one year beginning two weeks from and after the date of said contract, provided it be delivered in the year 1914; said contract to be evidenced by a printed form and delivered to the holder by the party of the first part as follows, to-wit:
“ ‘Dr. H. B. Pratt, a licensed physician and surgeon, does hereby agree that he will furnish to the holder and to the members of his family dependent on him as their names shall appear upon the card furnished by the Universal Service Agency, and that the holder and his said family shall be entitled to all reasonable physician’s services falling within the scope of duties of a physician and surgeon, including treatment of all physical diseases and ailments of every kind, na[417]*417ture and description, excepting: first, venereal diseases; second, chronic and incurable diseases; third, maj or surgery. Provided, however, that the holder must at all times come to the office of the physician for treatment if physically able so to do. That the holder shall pay to the physician one-half the regular professional fee in obstetrical cases. That the holder shall pay one-half the usual mileage for necessary trips outside the limits of the city of North Yakima. That the holder shall at all times be entitled to call in other physicians for consultation or assistance and pay therefor such fees as such consulting or assisting physicians may demand. Provided, further, that the expense of all medicines and appliances shall be at the expense of the holder; said services to be rendered for a period of one year beginning two weeks from and after the date and delivery of this contract number .... dated and delivered this .... day of...........A. D. 1914.’ ”

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

Related

Mendoza v. Rivera-Chavez
140 Wash. 2d 659 (Washington Supreme Court, 2000)
Hepler v. CBS, INC.
696 P.2d 596 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1985)
Blue Cross Hospital Service, Inc. of Missouri v. Frappier
681 S.W.2d 925 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1984)
Weber v. Blue Cross of Montana
643 P.2d 198 (Montana Supreme Court, 1982)
Prepaid Dental Services, Inc. v. Day
615 P.2d 1271 (Utah Supreme Court, 1980)
Group Life & Health Insurance v. Royal Drug Co.
440 U.S. 205 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Michigan Hospital Service v. Sharpe
63 N.W.2d 638 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1954)
Barmeier v. Oregon Physicians' Service
243 P.2d 1053 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1952)
Pacific National Bank v. Supervisor of the Inheritance Tax Division
216 P.2d 212 (Washington Supreme Court, 1950)
In Re Smiley's Estate
216 P.2d 212 (Washington Supreme Court, 1950)
K. C. Working Chemical Co. v. Eureka-Security Fire & Marine Insurance
185 P.2d 832 (California Court of Appeal, 1947)
McCarty v. King County Medical Service Corp.
175 P.2d 653 (Washington Supreme Court, 1946)
California Physicians' Service v. Garrison
172 P.2d 4 (California Supreme Court, 1946)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1942
Jordan v. Group Health Ass'n
107 F.2d 239 (D.C. Circuit, 1939)
State Ex Rel. Troy v. Lumbermen's Clinic
58 P.2d 812 (Washington Supreme Court, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
151 P. 768, 87 Wash. 413, 1915 Wash. LEXIS 896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-fishback-v-universal-service-agency-wash-1915.