extent of hi8 prem- lum note. + * *'I
See, also, Huber v. Martin,127 Via. 412, 105 N.U. 1031, 1135, 115 A.S.R. 1023, 7 Ann. Cas. i+OC,3 L.R.A. (N.S.)653; Sugg v. Farmers'Mutual Ineurance Associar.ion (Term.)63 S-W. 226, 228; Whiteheadv. Farmers'Fire & Lightning Mutual InsuranceCompany(MO. App.) 227 MO; App. 891, 60 S.W. (2nd)65; Buck v. Ross (S. D.) 240 N.W. 858; Wermuthv. Minden LumberCompany(La.) 57 So. 170; State v. Willett,(Ind.)86 N.E. 68; Greenlawv. Arooatook County, PatronsMutual Fire InsuranceCompany(Maine)105 Atl. 116.
In consideringyour inquiryve havekead many caaee in this and other jurisdictions.While the precisequestionof the legalityof politicalsub- divisionspurchasingmutual fire insurancehas not been before our Texas appellatecourts,we have three case8 construingvariousphases of our UorkmensCompensationAct, containinglanguage'wedeem conclusiveof the question.
In the case of Texas Employers"InsuranceAssociationv. City of Tyler, plaintiffsoughtto recoverunpaidpremiumson an employer'spolicyof in- surancetaken out by the City of Tyler, under the Workmen'.9CompensaticmAct and for penaltiesfor mfsrepresentatiormae to its payrolls. A generaldemur- rer wa6 sustainedin the districtcourt,and the InsuranceAssociationap- pealedto the TexarkanaCourt of Civil Appeals. Appellee,city of Tyler, in- sistedupon two propositions(1) that an incorporatedcity or town could not avail itselfof WorkmenleCompensationInsurance and (2) that the city could not becauseforbiddenby the terms of Section52 of Article3, and Section3 of Article11, of the Constitution, become a member of the Employer'sInsur- ance Association. With referenceto the latter contention, JusticeHodges wrote a8 follows;(283 S.W. 292 at p. 933):
"But concedingthat the Legislaturedid intendthat this Act should apply to incorporatedcitiesand towns,the questionarises,is there any constitutional restrictionwhich forbidssuch minicipalities becomingmem- bere of employers'insuranceassociations?Counselfor appelleecontend8 that there is and refers to the followingprovisionsof the State Constltu- tion:
(QuotingSection52 of Article3, and Gection3 of Article11, hereinabove set forth).
"The financialdifficultiesinwhich citiesand countiesformerlybe- came involvedby lendingtheir creditto aesistrailwayconstruction, and which causedthe adoptionof those provision8of the Conetltution,is a part of the legal historyof the state. -To,avoldthose and similardifficultlen was the plain purpoeeof those inhibitiona.While the Texas Employers' ' InsuranceAssociationie a corporation,it is not strictlya privatecorpora- tion and is not organizeda6 a privateenterprisefor profit. It baa no - . . . '.
Hon. E. G. Moseley,page 7, (O-924)
capjtalstock,and issuesno sharesto stockholders.It engages in no speculativeenterpriseand contractsno debts,exceptthose identicalto its operationin the performanceof its statutoryduties. It i.6what its name indicates,a mutual insuranceassociation. Subscribersdo not become such for profit,but for protectionagainstliabilitiesdifficultto escape, and to secure immunitieswhich other lava deny to employersof labor.Mid- dletonv. Power & Light Company,185 S.W. 556, 108 Tex. 96; City of Dallas v. Employers'InsuranceAssociation(Tex. Clv. App.) 245 S.W. 946. We, therefore,concludethat the Constitutionimposesno barrierto membership by incorporatedcities in an employers'insuranceassociation." (Underscoringours.)
The Court of Civil Appealsreversedthe districtcourt,reversingand remandingthe cause for trial.
A writ of error was granted,and the opinionof the Commissionof Appeals (SectionB), IS found in 288 S.W. 409. After reviewingthe statutesauthor- izingthe Texas Employers'InsuranceAssociation,which are very similarto the statutespertainingto mutual fire insurancethe opinionof Judge Spear reads as follows:
' * * * These and other provisionsof the act make it clear to ua that the Texas Employers'InsuranceAssociationis a corporationengagedin the ins~urancebusinesson the mutualplan, whose subscribersare stockholdersin such corporation. For this reason section52 of the Constitution, above quoted,forbidscitiesand towns from becomingstockholderstherein.
"Eut