Continental Assurance Co. v. Tennessee
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Alliance Life Insurance (Cal. Ct. App. 1944)
- S.M.Z. Corp. v. Director, Division of Taxation (New Jersey Tax Court 1982)
- Insurance Co. of North America v. Long (Tenn. 1965)
- United States v. Mirror Lake Golf and Country Club, Inc. (District Court, W.D. Missouri 1964)
- Leggett v. Missouri State Life Insurance Company (Mo. 1960)
- Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Murphy (S.C. 1945)
- Great Northern Life Ins. v. Read (10th Cir. 1943)
- Lincoln National Life Insurance v. Read (Supreme Court of the United States 1945)
- State v. Continental Assur. Co. (Tenn. 1940)
- Pendleton v. Revature LLC (District Court, W.D. Washington 2025)
- Grace v. Olympia School District (District Court, W.D. Washington 2019)
- Gold Creek Cellular of Montana Ltd. Partnership v. State (Mont. 2013)
- Kourtis v. Cameron (9th Cir. 2005)
- C. G. Gomillion v. Phil M. Lightfoot, as Mayor of the City of Tuskegee (5th Cir. 1959)
- Gross Income Tax Division v. Bartlett (Ind. 1950)
- Prudential Insurance v. Benjamin (Supreme Court of the United States 1946)
- Department of Treasury v. Wood Preserving Corp. (Supreme Court of the United States 1941)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
The State of Tennessee brought this suit to enforce payment of privilege taxes measured by premiums on policies -of insurance issued while appellant.was doitig business /. Within the State, but upon1 which the premiums were paid . after its withdrawal from the State. Appellant contended that since its withdrawal it had transacted no business within the State; that the policyholders there had mailed their premiums on unmatured policies to the home office of appellant in another State; and that to hold it liable for •thetaxes demanded would deprive it of its property in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution pf. the United States.
' The Supreme Court of Tennessee sustained the tax. It construed the statutory provisions to mean “that the tax is levied upon the right to do business in the state, measured by a percentage of annual premiums to the éxclusion of all. other taxes, the tax on the annual premiums to be paid throughout the life of policies issued”; that though “measured by two and a half per cent of premiums received oil policies issued by the company while exercising its license from the state, the tax was levied upon the privilege of entering the state ánd engaging in the insurance business, and not upon the annual premiums”; and that the appellant “by its compliance with the statute adopted and agreed to-the construction we have given it; and cannot now. repudiate its provisions.” 137 S. W. 2d 277.
This construction of the statute distinguishes the case from that of Provident Savings & Life Assurance Society v. Kentucky, 239 U. S. 103. There the question under the statute, as it had been construed by the state court, was whether the insurance company continued to do business within the. State for the period under consideration, despite the fact that it had withdrawn from the State, merely because of the'receipt'of premiums after, withdrawal. Thp *7 tax was not laid upon thfe privilege of doing business during the period that the company was actually within the State, the tax on that privilege being measured by the premiums received during the life of the policies. Id., pp. 110, 111. The Supreme Court of Tennessee emphasized the point of this distinction in its opinion on rehearing. 138 S. W. 2d 447. Compare State v. Insurance Company, 106 Tenn. 282, 333-335; 61 S. W. 75.
The appeal is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. .
Dismissed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.