Commonwealth ex rel. Hensel v. Provident Bicycle Ass'n
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 18, May T., 1896, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Dauphin Co., March T., 1895, No. 4, in quo warranto proceedings. Quo warranto to forfeit charter.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 18, May T., 1896, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Dauphin Co., March T., 1895, No. 4, in quo warranto proceedings. Quo warranto to forfeit charter. The facts appear by the opinion of McPherson, J., which was as follows: This a proceeding by quo warranto in which it is averred that the defendant claims to have, exercise, use, and enjoy the right to transact the business of insurance, but does not have a charter as required by the act of May 1, 1876, P. L. 58. The facts are agreed upon, and are substantially as follows : The defendant is a corporation chartered in November,…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Fell,
The defendant is a corporation chartered under the second section of the act of 1874 as a protective association. The question raised by the quo warranto and the answer is whether the association is carrying on the business of insurance in violation of the act of 1876. The right challenged is that of the defendant to carry on the business in which it is engaged. A part of this business is clearly not insurance, and a part of it may come within the meaning of that term. This would however depend on the manner in which the affairs of the association are conducted. All…
2Cited by17 opinions
- California Physicians' Service v. GarrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- Jordan v. Group Health Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
- State ex rel. Fishback v. Globe Casket & Undertaking Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1914
- Physicians' Defense Co. v. O'BrienSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- Allin, Ins. Com. v. Motorists' Alliance of A., Inc.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1930
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.