SECURITY MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
PREWITT, INSURANCE COMMISSIONER OF KENTUCKY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Security Mutual Life Insurance Company challenged the revocation of its permit to do business in Kentucky by the Insurance Commissioner, but the Supreme Court dismissed the case as moot because the permit had expired by its own terms before the Court could provide relief. The Court held that when an event occurring after the filing of a writ of error renders it impossible to grant effectual relief, the writ must be dismissed, even if the underlying revocation was illegal.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Peckham,
after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion' of the court.
-It appears that the laws of Kentucky require the annual renewal of the permit to any foreign insurance company, in order that the company may continue'to do business in the State, and without such license the company is prohibited from doing any business therein.
The writ of error in this case was filed January 27, 1905. and the license was granted July 1,. 1904, and expired by its' terms, if not .sooner revoked, on the first day of July, 1905. The permit, even if illegally revoked prior to that time, became a dead letter on July 1, 1905, so fár as constituting any authority to the company to remain in the State and do business therein. If the court should now assume to cancel the revocation it could not thereby reinstate the permit, which has already expired, and the company would still be without power to do business in the State until another permit should be granted. To adjudge that the old-permit remained good until the expiration of the year is to "adjudge an abstract question, as no relief can be now awarded concerning it. The refusal on the part of the Insurance Commissioner to grant authority to plaintiff to transact business after the old permit had expired does not raise a Federal question. Since the writ of error was filed' the permit has ceased to have any effect, and, therefore, an event has occurred which renders it impossible for this court to grant any effectual relief in favor of plaintiff in error. In such case the court will dismiss the writ of error. Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651; Tennessee v. Condon, 189 U. S. 64; Jones v. Montague, 194 U. S. 147.
It would seem to be plain that the cancelation of a revocation of a permit, when the permit itself has become of no effect by virtue of the lapse of time, would be useless business, and would give no practical relief to the company.
Writ dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
POE v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (U.S. 1961)…Co. v. Wright, 141 U. S. 696; Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651; Kimball v. Kimball, 174 U. S. 158; Tennessee v. Condon, 189 U. S. 64; American Book Co. v. Kansas, 193 U. S. 49; Jones v. Montague, 194 U. S. 147; Security Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Prewitt, 200 U. S. 446; Richardson v. McChesney, 218 U. S. 487; Berry v. Davis, 242 U. S. 468; Atherton Mills v. Johnston, 259 U. S. 13. Mr. Justice Brandeis, concurring, in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U. S. 288, 341, 347. The Mellon cases involved what…
-
United States v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt-Actien Gesellschaft, 239 U.S. 466 (U.S. 1916)…power, or affect the duty, of the court in this-regard.” See also Lord v. Veazie, 8 How. 251; Cheong Ah Moy v. United States, 113 U. S. 216; Little v. Bowers, 134 U. S. 547; Jones v. Montague, 194 U. S. 147; Security Life Insurance Co. v. Prewitt, 200 U. S. 446; Richardson v. McChesney, 218 U. S. 487; Stearns v. Wood, 236 U. S. 75. • Our attention has indeed been directed to a recent decision in United States v. Prince Line, Limited, 220 Fed. Rep. 230, where although it was recognized that “The combinatio…
-
Sec. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Prewitt, 202 U.S. 246 (U.S. 1906)…ion of the court. Motions for rehearing.have been presented by plaintiffs in error. The cases were commenced in the proper state court in Kentucky, and were argued here on their merits in January of this term, and the writs of error were dismissed, 200 U. S. 446, because, as appeared from the record, only abstract questions remained to be decided, the licenses to do business within the State of Kentucky in both cases, which had been granted. on July 1, 1904, for one' year, having expired since issuing the w…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651 (U.S. 1895)
- Jones v. Montague, 194 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1904)
- Tennessee v. Condon, 189 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1903)