highest amount insured upon any one life' Thus, in Ohio, the assessment company is required to pay only such sum as may be realized from an assessment, and its policy must so provide. But in Michigan such a company is obligated to pay the full amount of its policy. In Ohio endowment policies may be issued; in Michigan there is no provision for policies of that kind by assessment companies. And it was in evidence that the commissioner of insurance of that State had refused, for that reason, to issue his certificate of authority to do business to an Ohio assessment company. And finally, under the Ohio law, the beneficiaries were limited to the members themselves and their families and heirs, while in Michigan any body with an insurable interest might be a beneficiary. The court held that the Ohio assessment companies were not in Michigan "permitted to do business on substantially the same basis and limitations as they are in Ohio" and that the Michigan company must be excluded."

$ 135. Same "Taxes, Fines, Penalties, Deposits, Statements, Obligations and Requirements." A somewhat similar ruling was made in a case arising under the New Hampshire statute which provided for the imposition of "the same taxes, fines, penalties, deposits, statements, obligations and requirements' upon a foreign mutual insurance company as are imposed in the State of its domicile upon New Hampshire corporations. It was held that a

113

1 How. Mich. St. Supp. §§ 3960d4, 3960d6.

2 State v. Western Union Mut. L. & Acc. Soc., 47 Ohio St. 167, 24 N. E. Rep. 392. See also State v. Moore, 39 Ohio St. 486; State v. Moore, 38 Ohio St. 7.

3 Comp. St. N. H., p. 371, ch. 154, §§ 4, 5 and 6.

Massachusetts statute which provided that no foreign insurance company shall make a contract of insurance in that State until it had complied with the provisions of that act,' was thereby put into effect in New Hampshire, and that a contract of insurance made in that State by a Massachusetts mutual insurance company which had not complied in New Hampshire with the terms of the Massachusetts law was invalid."

§ 136. Same-"Same Obligations or Prohibitions."-The retaliatory section of the Ohio statute, which applies to insurance companies generally, provides that when, by the laws of another State, "any taxes, fines, penalties, license, deposits of money or of securities or other obligations or prohibitions" are imposed on Ohio insurance companies doing business there, "the same obligations or prohibitions of whatever kind" shall be imposed upon all insurance companies of that State doing business in Ohio. This act was held to be for the purpose of protecting insurance companies from imposition rather than retaliatory, in the sense of first imposing upon foreign companies such taxes as are imposed upon other foreign corporations under like circumstances, and then, in addition, a sum equal to what other States may impose upon Ohio companies doing business there. As a consequence, a peremptory writ of mandamus was granted to compel the superintendent of insurance to accept a sum which, in addition to the amount paid as taxes in the several counties, was sufficient to make

1 Laws Mass. 1854, p. 773, ch. 331, § 1.

2 Haverhill Ins Co. v. Prescott, 42 N. H. 547. Rev. St. Ohio, § 282.

3

the total equal to the amount that would be realized were the rule of taxation of the State of the corporate origin applied to the company's business in Ohio.' § 137. Same-When the Foreign Restrictions Coincide with Charter Limitations.-The Iowa court, in enforcing, under the retaliatory provision of the Iowa Code,' the statute of New York, which precludes foreign insurance companies from making in New York more than one of certain kinds of insurance, held that the fact that Iowa companies, by Iowa laws, are prohibited from making more than one kind of insurance in Iowa, and hence that the New York law does not deny them any right which they would have at home is immaterial; that if New York imposes any prohibitions, the same prohibitions must be imposed in Iowa as against New York companies. It may be noted in this connection that it is extremely doubtful whether the Iowa companies would not be precluded by the above mentioned provision of the Iowa Code from engaging in more than one kind of insurance in New York, irrespective of the New York law on that subject. The enactment in question is that "No company shall be organized to issue policies of insurance for more than one of the above five mentioned purposes, and no company that shall have been organized for either one of said purposes shall issue policies of insurance for any other."" Such a provision may fairly be regarded as a part of the

1 State v. Reimund, 45 Ohio St. 214, 13 N. E. Rep. 30.

2 Code Iowa, § 1154.

3 Code Iowa, § 1695.

4 State v. Fidelity, etc. Co., 77 Iowa, 648, 42 N. W. Rep. 509.

5 Code Iowa, § 1695.

charter of each company, and imposes a restriction which will accompany it into the New York jurisdiction.' If this view is right, and it is in accordance with every principle, it results that the New York statute withholds from the Iowa corporations only a privilege which they cannot accept, and the decision of the Iowa court enforces, by way of retaliation, a law which could have no application to Iowa corporations, the protection of whose interest the Iowa legislature must be held to have had in view.

1 See ante, § 9. Compare State v. Western Union Mut. L. & AccSoc., 47 Ohio St. 167, 24 N. E. Rep. 392. But see Griesa v. Massachusetts Ben. Ass'n, 15 N. Y. Supp. 72, where the New York Supreme Court held that the restriction imposed by a Massachusetts statute upon all companies, domestic and foreign, "doing business under this act," from issuing a policy upon the life of any person over sixty years of age (Acts Mass. 1885, ch. 183, § 10), will not follow a Massa. chusetts company into New York and invalidate a contract made there. On principle this decision is of doubtful authority.

ARTICLE VII.-TAXATION OF FOREIGN COMPANIES.

SECTION.

142. The Power in General.

143. Privilege Taxes.

144. License Fees-General Principles.

145.

Reasonableness and Unreasonableness of License Fees.

146. Distinction between a License Fee and a Tax for Revenue. 147. Same-Municipal License.

148. Special License-When Exclusive of Other Regulation. 149. Taxation for Revenue-Situs of Property-Personalty. 150. Situs of Real Estate.

151. Situs of Corporate Stock.

152. Situs of Rolling Stock of Railroad.

153. Assessment-Of Property within the State.

154. Same-Assessment upon "Net Value" of Insurance Policies. 155. Same-When fixed by Admitting Statute.

156. Same-In the Absence of Specific Legislation.

157. Remedies for Non-payment-Exclusion.

158.

Same-Indictment.

159. Collection from Local Agent.

160. Constitutional Questions-Citizenship-"Equal Protection of the Laws," etc.

163.

Same-Constitutional Restrictions.

164. Same-Payment of Tax to Fire Department or to a Benevolent Association.

165. Construction-Exemption from Taxation.

166. Same-Effect of Exemption from General Taxation.

167. Same "Manufacturing within the State."

168. Same "Insurance Company Incorporated or Associated" under Foreign Government-Joint-stock Company.

§ 142.

The Power in General.-The taxes which are imposed upon foreign corporations may be either taxes upon the property of the company