The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1916-04-22
SUMTER, s. O.. SATURDAY, APRIL 29 I91e
STATE OFFICIALS lEiub.,.
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND fNSUR-
ANOE COMMISSIONERS. DE
FEND LANEY-ODOlG
LAW.
State Regulation Declared PfoperS
Allcge Charleston Agent Has Failed
to Set Out Facts Sufficient - Con-
situte Cause Of Actiou Against
Them.

II u
Columbia. April 19.-Stating that
the petition does not state fsctS ..suf-
ficient to constitute cause 81 action,''
Thomas H. Peoples, attorney general,
yesterday fi!od a demurrer wath the
supreme court to the petition asking
that an Injunction be GRANTED tp pre-
vent the attorney general and the In I
surance commissioner from e1lAorcing
the terms Of the anti-conapa law.
The two officials have t,een crd3red ito
APPEAR in the supreme court today
and make answer to the order. 3
| The officials dcmur to the retition
on the following grounds: #
That it appears upon the kcs OF
the petition that 1t does NOT state
facts sufficient to constitute aS cause
OF action or to authorize the erant-
ing Of an injunction against pr re-
spondents restraining Of 81 <pining
them from enforcing the ps islons
OF the act of Tho general asss - en-
titled An act to prevent mn Ansur-
ance companies or associaaau 3 or
partnerships doing fire Inn yrxrice
business in this State to es1ts into
any compact or cembinati0nA with
any other firc insurance egaxpany,
association or partnorship. ;entroysd
the I'd day OF March. 1915, "a that
It appears upon the face Of n aaid
petition that on the 18th Nv OF
March. 1915. the Liverpool sn3 Lon-
don and Globe INSURANCE c6Shpsny.
whose agent the petitioner VII VOL
unfairly ceased to do bpsipess ih the
State OF South Carolina, ana u docs
not appear upon the face Of 81 peti-
ton that eithor the said in3ancs
company or the petitioner ap-
piled to the insurance ccmmi 81:
Of the State Of South Carolina d
license for said company to ca }on
business a. = fire insuranc4 vi ny'
Within the State a. ~
d f6f Tue pstitloH@ g Is act q q
Insurance agont within this statS,
NOR does it appear that the petitioner
has attempted in any way to comply
with the laws o: the State Of South
Carolina regulating the conduct Of
the business Of fire insurance within
the State OF South Carolina during
the year commencing April 1. 1915.
Petitioner not affected.
I'm that it docs not appear upon the
face OF the petition tnat the petitioner
has violated any Of the provisions Of
the said act entitled. An act to pre-
vent fire insurance companies or as
sociations. or partnerships doing fire
insurance buniness in the state of
South Carolina to enter into any COM
pact or combinations with any other
nre insurance companies, associations
or partnerships or that he is liable
to or threatened with prosecution for
violation Of said act. and SO far as the
petitioner Is concerned his rights and
privileges are In no wise affected by
any OF the provisions Of said act, and
1t Is immaterial to him whether or
not the said act is or is not, in VIOLA
ton or the constitution of this State.
I'm that the provision of Section 6
OF the said act providing that the
insurance commissioner shall have
power on written complaint, or upon
his own motion, to review any rate
fixed by any individual or insurer for
nre insurance upon property within
this State, for the purpose of deter
mining whether the same is discrim-
inatory or unjust, subject to a review
OF his findings by a court of compe-
tent Jurisdiction, and for the refund
or any overcharges made by the in
surer during the tendency of such
proceedings for review of the insur-
ance rate. is germane to the purposes
OF the act, as expressed in its title,
TO prevent insurance companies from
entering into any compact or combina-
ton for the purpose of governing or
controlling the rates charged for fire
insurance on property in this State.
I'm that Section Z Of tho said act
prohibiting any difference or distinc-
ton In rates, In methods of payment
OF premiums. or in any other way, be-
tween insurers Of risks of essentially
the same fire hazard, and providing
for the punishment OF a violation of
such prohibition, is germane to the
purpose of the act as expressed in its
title.