held in such a case that whatever might be the rule as to a New York corporation, a foreign company would fall within the provisions of another statute,' that where by the law of that State any act was forbidden to be done by any corporation or association, without express authority of law, and such act was done by a foreign corporation, it should not be authorized to maintain any action founded upon such act, or upon any liability or obligation, express or implied, arising out of, or made or entered into in consideration of such act, and that there could be no recovery either upon the loan or the

notes."

§ 113. "One Class or Kind of Business”-Construction.-In Massachusetts foreign insurance companies are required by statute to elect and be confined to one class or kind of business.' Under this provision it has been held that a company engaged in the transaction of a general accident business, may issue policies of the sort known as "employers' liability policies," "horse or vehicle policies," "elevator policies," "general liability policies" and "outside liability policies," to insure employers' against liabilities to other persons for injuries caused by the negligence of their employes, and to insure the owners of horses and vehicles and of elevators against liability for injuries to third persons,

same restraining act, and in which it was held, that although the notes must be held void, there could be a recovery for the loan itself upon the common counts.

12 Rev. St. N. Y. 1836, p. 273, § 2.

2 New Hope, etc. B. Co. v. Poughkeepsie Silk Co., 25 Wend. 648. Compare United States Mtge. Co. v. Gross, 93 Ill. 483.

3 Stat. Mass. 1878, ch. 130; Pub. Stat. ch. 119, § 201; Acts Mass. 1887. ch. 214, § 80.

without being engaged in "more than one class or kind of business within the State.""

§ 114. Forbidden Conditions in Insurance Policy. -Sometimes the making of specific contracts are regulated, as in Indiana, where a foreign insurance company is forbidden to insert a condition in its policy requiring the insured to give notice of a loss forthwith or within a period of less than five days, nor requiring the insured to procure the certificate of the nearest judicial officer, clergyman or other official or person of the loss, or the amount of the loss, not requiring the insured to bring suit within any period less than three years.' These provisions, which are simply limitations upon the company's power of contracting, have been sustained. Reasonable diligence in giving notice has been held sufficient, and the certificate of the nearest magistrate need not be furnished."

3

1 Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Merrill (Mass.), 29 N. E. Rep. 529.

2 Rev. St. Ind. 1881, § 3670.

3 Insurance Co. v. Brim, 111 Ind. 281, 12 N. E. Rep. 315.

Aurora Fire Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 46 Ind. 315.

(7)

ARTICLE V.-POLICE REGULATIONS.

SECTION.

119. The Police Power.

120. Regulation of Railroad Companies. 121. Same-Fencing Railroad Track.

§ 119. The Police Power.-That vague and undefined power inherent in every sovereignty, which we are accustomed to call the "police power" of the State, is said by JUDGE COOLEY to embrace, in a comprehensive sense, "the whole system of internal regulation by which the State seeks not only to preserve the public order and prevent offenses. against the State, but also to establish for the intercourse of citizens with citizens those rules of good manners and good neighborhood which are calculated to prevent a conflict of rights, and to insure to each the uninterrupted enjoyment of his own, so far as is reasonably consistent with a like enjoyment of rights by others.""1 The wide scope of this power is manifest. It is not our purpose now to examine its limitations, nor to consider it in all its various applications in the regulation of foreign companies. Every statutory regulation imposed by the sovereign upon foreign corporations within its jurisdiction is, in a broader sense, an exercise of the police power. But we will consider now only

1 Cooley, Const. Lim., 6th Ed. p. 704.

those police regulations, which are not specially directed to foreign corporations, but to which the foreign company subjects itself by coming within the limits of the State.

§ 120. Regulations of Railroad Companies.

Among the most familiar of these statutes are enactments regulating the business of railroad companies, reasonably limiting the amount of charges for the transportation of persons and and property and establishing a commission charged with the duty of preventing unreasonable or discriminating rates upon transportation, and with the enforcement of reasonable police regulations for the comfort, convenience, and safety of travelers and persons doing business with the company within the State. Such legislation has been repeatedly held to be within the power of the State, provided it does not amount to a regulation of interstate commerce. And in Stone v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.,' the Supreme Court of the United States recognized the power of the State to extend such regulations to a foreign corporation leasing and operating a railroad within the State, holding that, as to the leased road, it was subject to local legislation to the same extent to which the lessor would have been subject had there been no lease.

§ 121. Same Same-Fencing Railroad Track.-Upon precisely similiar principles it has been held that a statute requiring every railroad company whose

1 Railroad Commission Cases, 116 U. S. 307-356; Railroad Co. v. Maryland, 21 Wall. 456; Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Iowa, 94 U. S. 155; Peik v. Chicago, etc. R. Co., 94 U. S. 164; Winona, etc. R. Co. v. Blake, 94 U. S. 180; Ruggles v. Illinois, 108 U. S. 526, 531. See also Munn v. Illinois, 94 Ill. 113.

2116 U. S. 347.

line is open for use to erect and maintain fences on the side of its road, and declaring it liable to damages for injuries to live stock in case its fences are not made or are out of repair, applied to a foreign corporation which had extended its road into the State under legislative permission. The statute was enacted for public considerations. "Its purpose was to protect the traveling public, as well as farmers along the lines of railroads. It was just as important that a road belonging to a foreign company should be fenced as that other roads owned by domestic corporations should be. The policy of the statute extends to all railroads within the State and they are plainly comprehended in its language.

1 Purdy v. New York, etc. R. Co., 61 N. Y. 353.