Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Tafoya, 270 U.S. 426 (1926)

Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 270 U.S. 424, click here.

Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland v. Tafoya

No. 88

Argued January 7, 1926
Decided March 15, 1926
270 U.S. 426

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

Syllabus

1. Where a bill for an injunction alleges that threatened action by defendant state executive officials, under a state statute as construed by them, will deprive plaintiff of rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, jurisdiction of the district court does not depend on presence of an allegation that the statute itself is unconstitutional, since the amendment binds the state in all its branches. P. 434.

2. A state cannot use its power to exclude a foreign corporation from local business as a means of accomplishing that which is forbidden to the state, such a the regulation of conduct in another jurisdiction. P. 434.

3. Section 2820 of the 1915 Code of New Mexico, as amended in 1921, which purports to make it

unlawful for any insurance company authorized to do business in New Mexico. . . . to pay. . . . either directly or indirectly, any fee, brokerage or other emolument of any nature to any person, firm or corporation not a resident of the New Mexico for the obtaining, placing, or writing of any policy or policies of insurance covering risks in New Mexico,

and provides that any insurance company violating it shall have its certificates of authority to do business in the state suspended for not less than one year, the suspension to be removed only upon a written pledge that the section will be observed, held unconstitutional. P. 433.

4. The repeal of the section did not render this case moot, since, in view of a provision of the state constitution that "no act of the legislature shall affect the right or remedy of either party. . . . in any pending case," it is uncertain whether the plaintiff might not still be held liable to lose its license. P. 433.

Reversed.

Appeal from the decree of the district court which dismissed the bill in a suit to enjoin the State Corporation Commission of New Mexico from suspending the license of the plaintiff to do business in that state.