Sherman v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 15 — INSUKANCE CO. APPEAL PROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The 1 ‘ not for the incorporation and regulation of life insurance companies” is unconstitutional.
Read the full summary
Case 15 — INSUKANCE CO. APPEAL PROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The 1 ‘ not for the incorporation and regulation of life insurance companies” is unconstitutional. The act relates to more than one subject, and the title does not express its object. 2. This association, viz.: “ The Mutual Eeserve Fund Life Association ot New York,” is not a life insurance company, and its agents, therefore,, are not bound to procure a license. 3. The association is by the act of the General Assembly, approved March-6, 1876, exempted from the operation of the general life insurance-laws of this Commonwealth. 14…
1Opinion of the Court
CHIRP JUSTICE HARGIS
delivered the opinion of the court.
The constitutionality of “an act for the incorporation and regulation of life insurance companies,” is questioned on the ground that it is in conflict with that provision of the Constitution which declares that “no-law enacted by' the General Assembly shall relate to-more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in its title.”
The subject of' the act is life insurance, and the incorporation and regulation' of companies of that kind naturally relate to the subject. Those terms are not foreign to the subject, and the act refers wholly…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Penn Mut. Life Ins. v. Mechanics' Savings Bank & Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1896
- Martin v. StubbingsIllinois Supreme Court · 1888
- Toomey v. Supreme Lodge Knights of PythiasSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
- Shinn v. West Virginia InsuranceWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1927
- Fidelity Mut. Life Ass'n of Philadelphia v. MillerCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1899
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.