Continental Life Insurance & Investment Co. v. Hattabaugh
Idaho Supreme Court
An original application to this court for a writ of mandate. The statute necessarily interferes with the right of contract. {Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 3 Ann. Cas. 1133, 25 Sup. Ct. 539, 49 L. ed. 937; Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U. S. 313, 10 Sup. Ct. 862, 34 L. ed. 455; Brimmer v. Bebman, 138 U. S. 78, 11 Sup. Ct. 213, 35 L. ed. 862; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 6 Sup. Ct. 1064, 30 L. ed. 220; Ritchie v. People, 155 111. 98, 46 Am.
Read the full summary
An original application to this court for a writ of mandate. The statute necessarily interferes with the right of contract. {Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 3 Ann. Cas. 1133, 25 Sup. Ct. 539, 49 L. ed. 937; Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U. S. 313, 10 Sup. Ct. 862, 34 L. ed. 455; Brimmer v. Bebman, 138 U. S. 78, 11 Sup. Ct. 213, 35 L. ed. 862; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 6 Sup. Ct. 1064, 30 L. ed. 220; Ritchie v. People, 155 111. 98, 46 Am. St. 315, 40 N. E. 454, 29 L. R. A. 79, 82, and cases :’cited; Adair v. United States, 208 U. S. 161, 13 Ann. Cas. 764, 28 Sup. Ct. 277, 52 L. ed. 437,…
1Opinion of the CourtStewart, C. J.
This is an original action for a writ of mandate. The plaintiff is a life insurance company, organized under the laws of another state, and is a foreign corpora*290tion. The defendant is the insurance commissioner of the state of Idaho. The case is submitted upon an agreed statement of facts. In the statement of facts it appears that in June, 1911, the plaintiff tendered to the defendant, for his approval and filing in his office, a certain form of policy of insurance, of which the defendant disapproved and refused to receive or file.
The form of policy presented by plaintiff and asked to be filed…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Hooper v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Orient Insurance v. DaggsSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad v. MatthewsSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Blake v. McClungSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Fidelity Mutual Life Ass'n v. MettlerSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Rich v. WilliamsIdaho Supreme Court · 1959
- In Re EdwardsIdaho Supreme Court · 1928
- Bekken v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United StatesNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1940
- Eberle v. NielsonIdaho Supreme Court · 1957
- Williams v. BaldridgeIdaho Supreme Court · 1930
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.