Union Insurance v. Hoge

62 U.S. 35, 16 L. Ed. 61, 21 How. 35, 1858 U.S. LEXIS 621
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJanuary 10, 1859
StatusPublished
Cited by43 cases

This text of 62 U.S. 35 (Union Insurance v. Hoge) 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
Union Insurance v. Hoge, 62 U.S. 35, 16 L. Ed. 61, 21 How. 35, 1858 U.S. LEXIS 621 (1859).

Opinion

Mr. Justice NELSON

deliyered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the northern district of New York. •

The suit was brought against the defendants on a policy of insurance against fire, in the sum of $2,500, upon a paper-mill, machinery, and stock, of one R. K. Kounsler, of the State of Virginia, the ^property situate in that State. The defendants are incorporated under the laws of the State of New York, and the place of business at the village of Fort Plain, an interior town of that State. The policy and all interest under the game have been duly assigned to the plaintiff.

There is no question in the case'upon the loss, or upon the preliminary proofs; the defence being placed exclusively upon a defect of authority in the defendants to issue the policy. The act of the Legislature of New York, passed April 10,1849, under which they were incorporated, provided, section 1, that-any number of persons, not less than thirteen, might associate and form an incorporated, company, among other things to *61 make insurance on dwellings, houses, &c., agairst loss or damage by fire; section 3, that these persons should file in the office of the Secretary of the State a declaration, signed by them, expressing their intention to form a company for transacting the business of insurance, which declaration should comprise a copy of the charter proposed to be adoptecj by them, and requiring notice of their intention to be published in a newspaper a given number of weeks. Section 4 provides for opening books of subscription to the capital stock, and that in case the business of the company was to be conducted on the plan of mutual insurance, then to open books to receive propositions and enter into agreements in the manner afterwards specified; which- in substanfee is, that .the company shall' not commence business until agreements shall have been entered into for insurance, the premiums on which shall amount to one hundred thousand dollars, and notes have been received-in advance for the premiums on such-risks, payable at the end of or within twelve months from date, which notes .'shall be considered a part of the capital stock, and shall be deemed valid, negotiable, and collectable, for the purpose of paying losses or otherwise. Section 11, that the charter of-the company should be examined by the Attorney General of the State, and if found in accordance with the requirements of the act, and not inconsistent with the Constitution or laws of the State, he should certify the same to the Comptroller of the State; and thereupon the Comptroller should institute an examination to ascertain if the company had received, and had in its actual possession, the capital, premiums, &c., to the full extent required by the act; and upon.a certificate to this effect by the Comptroller, filed in the office of the Secretary of State, this officer should furnish the company with a certified' copy of the charter and certificates, which, upon being filed in the office of the clerk of the - county -in which the company is located, shall be its authority to commence business and issue policies.

By section 10 it is made the duty of the corporators to declare iii the charter the mode and manner in which the corporate powers conferred by the general act are to be exercised; and ■ by section 12 the corporators, trustees, or directors, as the case *62 may be,,shall have power to make such by-laws, not inconsist ent with, the Constitution or laws of the State, as may be deemed necessary for the government of its officers and the conduct of its affairs.

By the fifth section of the charter formed under this general act, it is provided that the rights, powers, &c., conferred by law on the company, shall be vested in and exercised by a board of directors, to consist of thirteen persons, to be elected by persons holding the. policies of insurance in the company or their proxies, and one vote shall be allowed on every one Hundred dollars insured. The eighth section of the charter provides that the rates of insurance shall be fixed and regulated by the company; and premium notes therefor shall be received from, the insured, and shall be paid at such time or times and in such sum or sums as the company shall from time to time require; and any person applying for insurance, so electing, may pay a cash premium, in addition to a premium note, or a definite sum in money, to be .fixed by the company, in full of said insurance and in lieu of a premium note.

The policy in question was issued on the payment of a cash, premium, under this eighth section of the charter, the insured paying a gross sum of fifty-six dollars and twenty-five cents for the insurance of his paper-mill and stock to the amount of $>2,500 for one year.

The ground taken in the defence is, that, according to the general act under which the defendants were organized, they ’were empowered to make contracts and issue policies of insurance to such persons only as became members of the company by giving premium notes; and that the eighth section of the charter, providing for the payment of the premium in cash, was without authority, and the policy therefore void.

It is stated in the plea upon which the question in the case ia raised, that from the time the company began business (August, 1850) till June, 1853, when it became insolvent, over two thousand policies were issued, founded upon premium notes, and over two thousand five hundred founded upon cash premiums ; and that the amount of forty-three thousand dollars was received by the company for policies iss ued upon cash premiums. *63 The general act, conferring the power upon companies organized under it to make contracts of insurance against tire and issue policies, provides for a certain amount of capital, ($100,000,) secured by. preinium notes upon engagements of insurance entered into by the companies, as a condition to the right of commencing the business of insurance. This capital, thus obtained, is essential to a complete organization under the act; for, without it, the corporation is forbidden to enter upon the business of insurance.

These preliminary engagements and the giving of premium notes were designed as an immediate security to persons who, confiding in the responsibility of the company, should make application for insurance on its going into operation.

" The notes thus constituting capital are to be made payable at or within a year from their-date; they may be made payable, therefore, within the terms of the act, on demand, or at any short period; and they are- made negotiable and collectable for the payment of any losses which may accrue in the business of insurance or otherwise. And it has been held in the Court of Appeals, in New York, that they are collectable by'the company, irrespective of losses, or assessments to pay losses. (16 New York R., 310; 2 Smith R.)

Now, although the general act provides for premium notes upon these preliminary engagements of insurance to be consummatéd on the organization of the company, and with' a view to capital upon which to begin the business of insurance, there is no provision to be foúnd in it prescribing the mode or manner in which premiums shall be paid or secured after th.e company has become organized and commenced operations.

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

Related

United States Parole Commission v. Noble
693 A.2d 1084 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1997)
Evans-Aristocrat Industries, Inc. v. City of Newark
356 A.2d 23 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1976)
Penn Mut. Indem. Co. v. Commissioner
32 T.C. 653 (U.S. Tax Court, 1959)
Aronoff v. Pioneer Mutual Compensation Company
304 P.2d 1083 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1956)
Insurance Co. of North America v. Commissioner of Insurance
101 N.E.2d 335 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1951)
Phyle v. Duffy
334 U.S. 431 (Supreme Court, 1948)
Mutual Fire Ins. Co. of Germantown v. United States
142 F.2d 344 (Third Circuit, 1944)
Keehn v. Parrish Dray Line
53 F. Supp. 855 (E.D. South Carolina, 1944)
Lewis v. Independent School Dist. of Austin
147 S.W.2d 298 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1941)
Washington County Fire Ins. v. Driscoll
28 F. Supp. 224 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1939)
Driscoll v. Edison Light & Power Co.
307 U.S. 104 (Supreme Court, 1939)
Ohio Farmers Indem. Co. v. Commissioner
36 B.T.A. 1152 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1937)
Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. City of Memphis
110 S.W.2d 352 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1936)
McMahon v. Cooney
25 P.2d 131 (Montana Supreme Court, 1933)
Childers v. Police Jury
121 So. 248 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1928)
United States ex rel. Young v. Stump
292 F. 354 (Fourth Circuit, 1923)
Pryor v. Marion County
140 Tenn. 399 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 U.S. 35, 16 L. Ed. 61, 21 How. 35, 1858 U.S. LEXIS 621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/union-insurance-v-hoge-scotus-1859.