Case ID: ohio-st_38/html/0347-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      McIlvaine, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State v. The Pioneer Live Stock Company.
    Section 3235, chapter I., title 2, of Revised Statutes, which reads : “Corporations may be formed in the manner provided in this chapter, for any purpose for which individuals may lawfully associate themselves together, except for dealing in real estate or carrying ón professional business,” must be construed as not authorizing the incorporation of insurance companies, as the organization of such companies is specially provided for in chapters X. and XI. of same title.
    QUO WARRANTO.
    The defendant claims to be a corporation organized under the laws of this state, for the purpose, as shown by the certificate of its organization, of promoting and encouraging the importation, breeding and raising of fine horses and cattle, and to protect tire owners of the same against the loss thereof by death or theft.
    The capital stock of the condpany is $5,000, divided into one hundred shares of $50 each.
    The only business actually done by the company was the insurance of its members against loss by reason of the theft or death of live stock, upon the mutual plan of insurance.
    The relator denies the right or power of the defendant to engage in the business of insurance in any form whatever, and prays for judgment of ouster, &c. The defendant demurs to the petition of relator.
    
      George K. Wash, Attorney-General, for plantiff.
    
      It. O. Fulton and George M. Eiehelberger, for defendant.
   McIlvaine, J.

The defendant claims the right to insure the owners of horses and cattle against loss by theft or death, under its articles of incorporation and by virtue of section 3231 of Revised Statutes, which provides: “ Corporations may be formed, in the manner provided in this chapter, for any purpose for which individuals may lawfully associate themselves together —except for dealing in real estate, or carrying on professional business; and if the organization is for profit it must have a capital stock*.”

Undoubtedly the broad terms of this-section would be sufficient warrant for the exercise by defendant of the franchises and privileges claimed; but, on the other hand, it is claimed that section 3235 must be construed in connection with chapters 10 and 11, title 2, of Revised Statutes, wherein, it is claimed that the whole subject of insurance by incorporated companies in this state is regulated,- and that defendant is not within the provisions or protection of either of these chapters.

We agree with the attorney-general in the opinion, that the whole subject of insurance by companies incorporated under the laws of this state is regulated by these chapters, and that no insurance company can be incorporated under the general provisions of section 3235. The special provisions made in these chapters in relation to the organization of insurance incorporations withdraws snch corporations from the general provisions in section 3235, which relate to corporations generally.

It is not claimed that defendant was organized under these chapters, and it is plain it was not. Chapter 10 relates exclusively to insurance on the lives of individuals. Chapter 11 embraces all insurance other than life.

In this chapter three classes of insurance companies are provided for: 1st. Stock. “The minimum amount of stock required is $100,000. The defendant has only $5,000. 2nd. Mutual. There is no claim that the conditions precedent to the organization of a company on the mutual plan, as emunerated in section 3634, have been complied with. 3d. mutual protection as authorized by sections 3686, 3687 and 3688. [The defendant was not organized as a mutual protection association.] The number of corporators required by these sections is not less than ten. The number who signed the defendant’s certificate was only eight.

It follows, therefore, that the defendant is wrongfully exercising the franchise of insurance, and must be ousted. The demurrer is overruled and judgment for relator.