Questions similar in principle to those involved in this case, came before us, at the last term of the court, in the case of the National Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Albert D. Yeomans (supra 25); and we then intimated, as we now decide, that it is not competent for the members of a mutual insurance company to avoid payment of their just ratable assessments, and of the losses to which they have by.contract subjected themselves, by acutely picking flaws in the mode in which their company has been organized, and as members of which they stand in the double relation of insurer and insured. It is quite enough for them, when called upon equitably to respond to their share of the losses under their contracts of insurance, that the company and its officers are such de facto, -under color of authority, and with their acquiescence as members, and that of the General Assembly as representing the public. If collateral issues could *133 be raised in every suit for a petty assessment, going to tbe organization of the corporation, or to tbe election of each one of its acting officers, great delay and expense might be needlessly visited upon tbe corporation, and great loss inflicted upon other members, who rely, for indemnity, upon tbe prompt obedience of their associates to just calls made upon them for contribution.

Tbe exceptions taken to tbe rulings of tbe Court of Common Pleas are overruled, with costs.