Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-03T17:48:31.060Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Governmental Regulation of Life Insurance in the United States of America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

Sheppard Homans
Sheppard Homans
Affiliation:
New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As the members of the Institute are doubtless aware, government in the United States differs in at least one important particular from that in Great Britain. In the former country all legislation must conform to the requirements of a written Constitution, and such conformity or non-conformity is decided in each case as it arises, without appeal, by a Supreme Court. In the latter country, on the contrary, the validity or otherwise of any Act of Parliament is decided by unwritten traditions and evolutions developed by the growth and experience of centuries. It is not my object or province to discuss the relative advantages and disadvantages of the two systems; I merely state the fact which must be clearly kept in view in order to understand the unique position of life insurance in the United States as regards governmental intervention.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Institute of Actuaries , Volume 33 , Issue 4 , July 1897 , pp. 320 - 344
Copyright
Copyright © Institute and Faculty of Actuaries 1898

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 322 note * Pensacola Tel. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., U.S. 1, 9.

page 323 note * Henderson v. New York, 92 U.S., 259; Pensacola Tel. Co. v. West, &c, Tel. Co., 96 U.S., 1, 9; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat, 1, 189.

page 323 note † McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wh., 316.

page 323 note ‡ Op. of Ct. Pembina Mining Co. v. Pa., 125 U.S., p. 186, adopting an opinion of Justice Bradley in Stocton v. Balt, and N.Y.R.R. Co., 32 Fed. Rep., 9.

See also

Pensacola Tel. Co. v. W. U. Tel. Co., 96 U.S., 1; McCall v. Cal., 136 U.S., 104; Norfolk, &c, Ry. Co. v. Pa,, 136 U.S., 114.

page 324 note * Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall, p. 183.

page 324 note † Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall, 457, 539; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat, 304.

page 324 note ‡ McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat., 316, 413.

page 324 note § United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch, 358.

page 327 note * Alexander on Life Insurance, page 1; Rawls v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 27 N.Y., 282.

page 327 note † Biddle on Insurance, page 186; Delby v. India and Lond. L. Assurance Co., 15 Q.B., 365; Trenton Mut. L. and F. Ins. Co., v. Johnson, 4 Zab. (N.Y.), 576; De Rouge v. Elliott, 8 Green (N.J.), 486; Rawls v. Am. Mut. L. Ins. Co., 27 N.Y., 282; Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Allen, 13 Ins. L.J., 897 (Mass.); Scott v. Dickson, 108 Pa. St., 6; Carson's Ap., 13 Pa. St., 438; Mowry v. Home L. Ins. Co., 9 R.I., 346; Conn. Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Schaefer, 94 U.S., 457; Warnock v. Davis, 104 U.S., 775.

page 330 note * Const. Law, Cooley, p. 68.

page 330 note † Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat., 122; Ogden v. Sannders, 12 Wheat., 213; Baldwin v. Hale, 1 Wall, 223; Ex parte Eames, 2 Sorty, 322.

page 330 note ‡ Const. Law, Cooley, p. 69.

page 330 note § Const. Law, Cooley, p. 69.

page 330 note ǁ McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat., 316, 413.

page 330 note ¶ Const. Law, Cooley, p. 149.

page 331 note * Welton v. Missouri, 91 U.S., 275.

page 331 note † Hall v. De Cuir, 95 U.S., 485, 490.

page 331 note ‡ Welton v. Missouri, 91 U.S., 275, 282.

page 331 note § Locke on Civil Government, 142; Barto v. Himrod, 8 N.Y., 483; Rice v. Foster, 4 Harr., 479; Cooley, Const. Lim., 4th ed., 141-152.

page 331 note ǁ Const. Law, Cooley, p. 139.

page 332 note * Const. Law, Cooley, p. 148; Bennett v. Bull, Baldw., 74; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Riblett, 66 Penn. St., 164.

page 332 note † Madison, &c, R. R. Co. *. Whiteneck, 8 Ind., 217; Bull v. Read, 13 Grat. (Va.), 98.

page 333 note * Tiernan v. Rinker, 102 U.S., 123.

page 334 note * Santa Clara County v. So. Pac. Ry. Co., 118 U.S., 396; Pembina Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U.S., 181.