The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1913-03-22
INSURANCE LICENSE DECISION,
COMMISSIONER IIAS KGIIF TO RE
QCIRE SECURITIES.
Decision Given i'm Case of Phoenix
Mutual Life Insurance CO.nuauy
Against l.. IL. McAIaStcr.

Columbia, March 1S.-'rhc inyur-
ancc commissioner Of South Caro-
lima has been given the right hy TN,
supreme court To require insurance
companies to deposit approved soclir-
ltlcs before granting a license This
right was defined i'm a decision by the
court I'm the case of the PhOcniN Nu-
tual Lille Insurance company against
+. IL. MCAIastcr. The court, in a de-
cISl"n yesterday, refused the appli-
cation for a writ of mandamuS
The question under consideration
involved tne construction of the act
of 1910, which contains these provi-
SiunS:
Before licensing any insurance
company to do business ir this state,
the insurance commissioner shall re-
quire each such company to deposit
with him an approved bond or ap-
proved securities, i'm the discretion OF
the commission, rs follows: Each lc-
"ai reserve life insurance company
S@O,OO0; each FIRE, accident, CaSultV
or surety insurance company $l0,O00.'
The Phoenix. Mutual Life Insurance
company rendered the fees for license
and its bond with the Gulf ana At
lantic insurance company as surety
hut the insurance commissioner re
fused TO issue a license, unless the
company would furnish him with an
aiildaVit, showing that at least one
fourth of its reserve ON South Carroll
ma policies had been invested in the
securities named in the act Of 1910
In" following securities are mentioned
IN the act: Bonds of this state, or of
any county, city or town in this
state; or first mortgage bonds ON real
estate in the state; or first mortgage
bonds of solvent corporations, whose
property is situate entirely within the
state; or any property situate in this
state and taxable therein
The petitioner contends" saws the
supreme court, that the refusal to
issue the license was an abuse of dis
cretion; also, that it was in violation
of article /, section 3 of the constitu-
ton of this State; and the 18th
amendment Of tho constitution Of the
United States, i'm that the petitioner
was denied the equal protection Of
the law, and was deprived OF his
property without due process of law
IF the insurance commissioner had
merely ruled that ne would not issue n
license to the petitioner, unless ii de-
posted with him approved sccuri-
ties, ii would not have the right to
compel him to accept an approval
bond, as the statute, unqucStionably.
conferred upon him the power to cX-
crcisc his discretion i'm this respect
The petitioner, however, contends
that ii was beyond the powers confer
| red upon the respondent by the stat
| ute To refuse to issue the license un-
| less it showed that it had invested at
| least one-fourth of its reserve on
South Carolina policies; that the cf-
| feet of said ruling was to impose an
| other condition, in addition to those
mentioned i'm the statute, and there
| fore, that it was nullity.
| The petitioners did not offer To de-
| post with the insurance commissioner
| any securities whatever, nor to com
| ply with the said ruling in any man
| ncr; but, in effect, attempted to eX-
| crcisc its own discretion by insisting
| that the insurance commissioner
! should accept the bond which was
| rendered Under these circumstances
| the petitioner is not in u position 10
| raise this action, rs il has failed to
| show that said ruling was prcjudiCial
To its rights"
| This is the conclusion Of the case.
| but as the question whether the pc
| ttiOner was denied the equal pro-
! lection of the law, fairly arises upon
| the record, We will not decline to con
| slider it.
The act of 1910 (paCc 772 pro-
Nldcs: 'Bcforc granting q certificate
| of authority to do business in This
| state To any company, the Insurance
commissioner small be satisfied by
| proper evidence, that such applicant
| Tor license is duly qualified to do bus
| mess under the laws Of the state;
| that it, is safe and solvent; that its
| dealings are fair and equitable, and
| that ii conducts its business in "a man
| nor not contrary to the public inter
| eStS.'
| 1T will thus be seen that the stat
ute CuntcmplatcS that the insurance
| commissioner must be satisfied ny the
proper evidence, i'm each and every
case, that the application possesses the
necessary qualifications for doing bus
| mess i'm this state, and that in. each
| case he must determine whether the
public interest would be best sub
served by requiring the particular
applicant to deposit an approved
| bond or approved securities. by this
construction alone can the diSCrc-
| tinnarN powers conferred upon the
commission, be exercised and made
effective. Therefore, the requirement
that no applicant should deposit an
approved bond, and another appli-
cant approved securities, is not Il dc
NAL of the equal protection Of the
law
"FrOm these conclusions it ncccs-
sarily follows that the petitioner was
not deprived of his property without
due process of law
1T is tn" Judgment of this court
that the application for Il writ Of
mandamu' Ic refused and the appeal
dismissed