city or town a8 a member of or stockholderin such a concern. In other words, I see no constitutional bar to.citiesand towns being brought under the provisionsof the Workmen'sCompensationAct if its Insurancei.8carried in what is known as an old line insurancecompany..a* *
"In the City.ofTyler case, the policy of the.insurancewas issuedby Texas Employers'InsuranceA88ociation,a.mutual insurancecOrnpan&chartered ' under the laws of this state,and the taking out a policy in said association clearlyinvolvedthe city as a member of or stockholderin said concern,a (. _... -
Hon. E. G. Moeeley,page 9, (O-924)
thl.ngclearl~v prohibitedby the articleof cur Conetl.tut:on cfted,and the holdingto that effect ruled that ca8e.* * * (Underscoring ours
In the case of McCalebv. ContinentalCasualtyCompany,(Tex. Civ.App.) li3 SW. (2nd) 347, (Tex.Sup.Ct.) 116 S.W. (2nd)679, the COU% of Civil Ap- peals held that citiesand towns cam8 within the provisionsof the Workmen's CompensationLaw, but resifflrmedthe .holdingin the city of Tyler case that the Texas Employers'InsuranceAssociationie a mutual aseociation,of which the subscribersare etockholders and that under the constitutiona micipal corporationmay not laufullybecomea subscriberof that association,because of its mutual character. We quote one paragraphof the court of C4vll Ap- peals:
"And it has been decided,in effect,that municipalCorpOMtiOn8 may insuretheir employees,under the provisionsof the act, in a non-mutual, or 'oldline' company,and therebyacquireall the benefits,and assume all ;...the responsibility, of a lawful subscriberunder the act. SouthernCasualty .Companyv. Morgan, 8upra;Great AmericanInd. Companyv. Blakey, supra." (GreatAmericanInd. Companyv. Blakey,Tex. Civ. App., 107 S.W. (2nd) 1002).
When the case came before our SupremeCourt,JusticeSharp wrote the opinion,holdingthe court of Civil Appeal8erred in holdingthe Workmen'8 CompensationAct a8 writtenappliedto cities,towns and municipalcorpora- tiOn8,but with referenceto the right of municipalcorporationsto insure employees,ve quote the following:
"In 1926 the questionreachedthis court, and it was first held that the Workmen'sCompensationLaw appliedonly to ordinaryprivatecorporations, and that the law did not apply to cities,towns or municipalcorporations. City of Tyler v. Texas Employers' InsuranceAssociation,Tex. Corn.App., 288 S.W. 409; Id.,Tex.Com.App. 294 S.W. 195; See also SouthernCasualty Companyv. Morgan,Tex. Corn.App., 12 S. W. (2nd) 200; Adklnsonv. City of Port Arthur,Tex. Civ. App. 293 S.W. 191, writ of error refused;Brooka v. State,Tex. Civ. App. 68 S. W. (2nd) 534, writ of error refused;45 Tex. hr. p. 455, 5 69, and cases cited. It .$a6also held that by virt~o of section 52,ofArticle3 of our Constitution, Vernon'sAnn. St. Conat.,Art. 3; 5 52, municipalcorporationacould not take out a policy of insurancein a mutual insurancecompanywhich would requirea city to become a member of or stockholderin such Insurancecompany. However,on the other hand, it was held that cities could carry insuranceissuedby old line companiesin favor of their employees,irrespectiveof the factthat the insurermeasured its liabilityby applicableprovisionsof the Workmen'sCompeneationLaw. SouthernCasualtyCompanyv. Morgan,Tex. Corn.App. 12 S.W. (2nd) 200, Id., Tex. Corn.App. 16 S.W. (2nd) 533; MarylandCasualtyCompanyv. Rutherford 5 cir. 36 F. (2nd) 226; 45 Tex. Jur. p.p. 455-457, 0 69, 30 Tex. Jur., p. p. 527-529, 5 29. * * * .'.
"While it haa been held that the Workmen'sCompensationAct does not' apply to cities,and that section52 of Article3 of the Constitution, Vernon'8 Am. St. Con&., Art. 3 $ 52, prohibitsa city from becominga member