DUCAT
v.
CHICAGO
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.
In Ducat v. Chicago, the Supreme Court upheld an Illinois statute that imposed discriminatory licensing conditions on foreign insurance corporations, finding that states have the constitutional power to distinguish between domestic and foreign corporations conducting business within their borders. The Court affirmed the judgment against the insurance companies, relying on its prior decision in Paul v. Virginia, which had established that such state discrimination does not violate the privileges and immunities clause or the Commerce Clause, and that the degree of discrimination is a matter for the state to determine within constitutional bounds.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the. opinion of the court.
This case was pending here when that of Paul v. Virginia was argued and decided; the decision in which, as is admitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff in error, has already disposed of all the principal questions involved.
Paul, the agent of the insurance companies' in that case, refused to comply with some of the conditions annexed by the law of Virginia to the granting of the license, on the ground: 1, that the corporations he represented were entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States, and that the law imposing discriminating conditions against foreign corporations was void as repugnant to this clause of the Constitution; and 2, that it was void as against the commercial power. Both these grounds of defence were overruled for the reasons assigned in the opinion of the court, which need not be repeated, and the agent held liable to the penalty imposed for a violation of the act. The principle of that case must govern the one before us. The only difference.between the statute of Virginia and that of Illinois is, that-the latter is more onerous to the companies than the former. The difference is in degree, not in principle.
The power of the State to discriminate between her own domestic corporations and those of other States, desirous of transacting business within her jurisdiction, is clearly established in the case we have referred to, as it also had been in the previous case of Augusta v. Earle.
*
As to the nature or .degree of discrimination, it belongs to the State to determine, subject only to such limitations on her sovereignty as may be found 5n the fundamental law of .the Union. We find no such limitations in this case.
Judgment affirmed.
*
13 Peters, 619.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (29 total)
-
United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n, 322 U.S. 533 (U.S. 1944)…thus charges only restraints in the terms of the insurance contracts and restraints, by boycotts, in competition in entering into such contracts and in entering into contracts of reinsurance. E. g., Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168; Ducat v. Chicago, 10 Wall. 410; Liverpool Insurance Co. v. Massachusetts, 10 Wall. 566; Philadelphia Fire Assn. v. New York, 119 U. S. 110; Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648; Noble v. Mitchell, 164 U. S. 367; Orient Insurance Co. v. Daggs, 172 U. S. 557; New York Life Ins. Co.…1 / 3
-
Prudential Ins. Co. v. Benjamin, 328 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1946)…hat a State may not exact from a foreign corporation as a condition to admission to do business the payment of a tax measured by the business done within its borders.” Lincoln National Life Ins. Co. v. Read, 325 U. S. 673, 677. See Ducat v. Chicago, 10 Wall. 410; Philadelphia Fire Assn. v. New York, 119 U. S. 110; Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Harding, 272 U. S. 494; Continental Assurance Co. v. Tennessee, 311 U. S. 5. See discussion in Henderson, The Position of Foreign Corporations in American Constitutional L…
-
Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. R.R. Comm'n of Cal., 271 U.S. 583 (U.S. 1926)…ransaction of business in the state, it has uniformly asserted that no conditions can be imposed by: the state which are repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States. La Fayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. 404, 407;. Ducat v. Chicago, 10 Wall. 410, 415; Ins. Co. v. Morse, 20 Wall. 445, 456; St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U. S. 350, 356; Phila. Fire Assn. v. New York, 119 U. S. 110, 120.” In Southern Pacific Company v. Denton, 146 U. S. 202, 207, there was under consideration a Texas statute requiring…
Previewing 3 of 29 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence