Case Name: JONES v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-04-11
Citations: 265 S.W. 577
Docket Number: No. 7489
Parties: JONES v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 265
Pages: 577–579

Head Matter:
JONES v. STATE.
(No. 7489.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 11, 1923.
State’s Rehearing Denied June 6, 1923.)
On Rehearing.
1. Insurance <&wkey;>30 — Soliciting without certificate held punishable when done either for foreign or domestic company.
When construed with Rev. St. art. 4960, Acts 31st Leg. (1909) c. 108, § 49, make it an offense to solicit insurance without certificate from commissioner of insurance and banking, whether for foreign or domestic company, and information was not defective because not alleging that company solicited for was foreign one.
2. Criminal law <&wkey;>!09l(4) — Bill of exceptions held insufficient to apprise court whether trial court’s action was erroneous.
Bills of exceptions which do not contain evidence admitted over objection or state surroundings and connections with sufficient detail to permit appellate court to determine whether ruling on admission of evidence was erroneous do not show error.
3. Insurance &wkey;>30 — Company’s authority not defense to charge of soliciting without certificate.
In prosecution for soliciting life insurance without certificate of authority from commissioner of insurance, defendant was not entitled to acquittal if he had authority from insurance company to represent it.
4. Criminal law <&wkey;8l5(3) — Instruction Ignoring part of charge held properly refused.
Where information alleged that defendant solicited insurance and received compensation, and transmitted application for policy, and assumed to act without certificate of authority, there was no error in refusing his request that, unless he received compensation, jury should acquit, as it ignored part of charge.
Appeal from Wichita County Court, at Law; Guy Rogers, Judge.
Emmet A. Jones was convicted of violating the insurance law, and he appeals.
Affirmed on rehearing.
Davenport & Thornton, of Wichita Falls, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
Appellant was convicted of violating the insurance law; punishment fixed at a fine of $150.
The prosecution is apparently based upon section 49. Chapter 108, Acts Thirty-First Legislature, which forbids one to act as the agent or solicitor of a life insurance company without a certificate of authority to act as such agent.
It is charged that appellant solicited Sam Kruger to take an insurance policy in the "Protective Life Insurance- Company," and did receive 'directly or indirectly compensation therefor, and had at the time no cer-tificáte of authority to act as agent for said company.
Section 47 of the act in question contains the following:
"Every such foreign company shall, by resolution of its board of directors, designate some officer or agent who is empowered to appoint or employ its agents or solicitors in this e state and such officer or agent shall promptly notify the commissioner in writing of the name, title and address of each person so appointed or employed. Upon receipt of this notice, if such person is of good reputation and character, the commissioner shall issue to him a certificate which shall include a copy of the certificate of authority authorizing the company requesting it to -do business in this state and the name and title of the person to whom the certificate is issued."
There is evidence that appellant bad been appointed agent for the Protective Life Insurance Company, but that no certificate from the commissioner of insurance and banking of this state ratifying his appointment had been issued. The conviction is foun'ded upon the theory that appellant had violated the law in soliciting insurance without previously receiving a certificate from the commissioner of insurance and banking showing his consent to appellant's appointment as agent. Unless we misconceive the law upon which the prosecution is based, it requires that such certificate be issued in cases only in which the agency is that of a "foreign" insurance company. Section 47, which we have quoted above, refers in terms to a "foreign company," and we have found nothing in that section nor' in any other section of the act which requires that the certificate mentioned be issued where the agency is that of a domestic insurance company. The statute (section 1) very clearly draws the distinction between foreign and domestic companies. It says that the term "foreign company" means any life, accident, or health insurance company organized under the laws of any other state or territory of tbe United States or foreign country; that the term "home" or domestic company as used herein designates those life, accident, or life and accident, health and accident, or life, health, and accident, insurance companies incorporated and formed in this state. Throughout the act are found provisions which' related to the home or domestic insurance companies which do not relate to foreign insurance companies, and vice versa. Section 47, supra, seems to be one of these.
In writing the information the pleader takes no note of this distinction, but describes the company thus, "Protective Life Insurance Company," and there is found in the information no other designation or intimation that it is a foreign insurance com pany. This being true, no offense is charged, because under the act in question it is not made an offense to solicit insurance without a certificate from the commissioner of insurance and banking, unless the solicitation be upon behalf of a foreign insurance company.
For these reasons the judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
<§=3For other cases see same topic and KEY-N UMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes