MUNICH REINSURANCE COMPANY

v.

FIRST REINSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD

Citator

Cited By

• People of the State of N.Y. v. Gamble Latrobe, JR., 279 U.S. 421 (U.S. 1929)
  …on foreign corporations, measured by a fixed percentage of its non-par stock valued, as required by the statute, at $25 per share, and apportioned to the property and business of the corporation within the state. Margay Oil Corporations. Applegate, 273 U. S. 666; aff’g 167 Ark. 614; Gilliland Oil Co. v. Arkansas, 274 U. S. 717, aff’g 171 Ark. 415. The kind and number of shares with which a foreign corporation is permitted to carry on its business within the state is a part of the privilege which the state…
• GMO. Niehaus & Co. v. The United States, 373 F.2d 944 (Ct. Cl. 1967)
  …diction. The Supreme Court’s affirming opinion does not appear to indicate any other view (see 222 U.S. at 568, 574, 32 S.Ct. 179). Defendant relies on Munich Reinsurance Co. v. First Reinsurance Co., 6 F. 2d 742 (C. A. 2, 1925), appeal dismissed, 273 U.S. 666, 47 S.Ct. 458, 71 L.Ed. 830 (1927), but there is nothing in the opinion on the treaty-waiver defense as a jurisdic [*958] tional matter.3 The case applies the treaty, so it appears to us, as a substantive defense. In two recent decisions under the f…
• Int'l Shoe Co. v. Shartel (W.D. Mo. 1928)
  …instant case squarely within the decision of Roberts & Schaefer Co. v. Emmerson, supra. Moreover, an almost parallel case was determined by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Margay Oil Corporation v. Applegate, Attorney General, 273 U. S. 666, 47 S. Ct. 458, 71 L. Ed. 830. In that case, as in this, a Delaware corporation doing business in Arkansas became subject to the Franchise Tax Law of that state. The complaint was made there, as here, to the effect that an arbitrary valuation was us…

  ← 1 / 2 →

Authorities Cited

• Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U.S. 561 (U.S. 1912)