pany the certificate provided for in section 1170. The plaintiff is a joint stock company with one hundred thousand dollars capital stock and the purpose of its organization, as declared in its articles of incorporation, is that of conducting the business of life insurance, and to do a general life insurance business in such manner as the directors of the association may deem proper in accordance with law. The proof shows that not only has twenty-five per cent of the capital stock been paid up and invested in securities, but that the whole one hundred thousand dollars is paid up and invested in securities, and the entire amount of the securities were deposited at the time of the cancellation of the Auditor's certificate by him; and the plaintiff has since then tendered and offered to deposit with the Auditor the securities or the amount of its entire capital stock, to-wit: one hundred thousand dollars. The securities are of the character required by the statute, and the Auditor makes no objection to them. When the company embarked in business it was unquestionably entitled to the Auditor's certificate which was issued by the predecessor of the defendant. It started out in business after a literal and full compliance with the requirements of the law, and the Auditor very properly recognized it by the issuance of his certificate.

Since then the company has been doing business in the State, and has, as it avers, issued and outstanding about twenty-five hundred policies; and if it is not now entitled to the certificate demanded, it is because of the character of the business transacted by it, and its inability to comply with the statute in making its annual report. Section 1167 of the Code, without particularly quoting, provides for an annual report from each of the companies doing business in the State; and, with other things, the company is required to state in such annual report the amount of its liabilities, including, seventh, the amount required to safely re-insure all outstanding risks. By section 1169 of the Code the Auditor is required to ascertain the net cash value of the outstanding policies, and notify the company of the amount necessary to deposit to properly protect the policy holders. But no joint stock company, organized under the laws of this State, shall be required to make such deposit until the cash value of the policies in force as ascertained by the Auditor exceeds the amount deposited by said company, under section 1162. And section 1168 authorizes the Auditor to make of the company such inquiries as he may think necessary to elicit a full exhibit of the standing of the company, to the end that he may ascertain the net cash value of the policies, and determine the amount of the required deposit to indemnify and protect the policy holders. In pursuance of the statute the Auditor requested the plaintiff to state with other things the "net present value of all its outstanding policies in force on the 31st day of December, 1882," and elicited the following response: "This association pays its losses by assessments on its policy holders, guaranteeing no specific amount; therefore makes no report of the net value of policies. The form of policy used by the plaintiff is made an exhibit to its petition, and is

corroborative of this answer. This answer and the form of the policy used determines the character of the business of the plaintiff, and upon it the Auditor substantially predicates his refusal to issue his certificate.

Under the general insurance laws the State undertakes to exercise a general supervisory control over insurance companies doing business within its borders, and to require them from time to time to make deposits with its Auditor security, in cash, stocks, or bonds, for the faithful payment of its risks taken upon the lives of their customers; and to the end that the companies shall be financially able to meet and pay their death losses. If by the policy issued no liability or obligation is incurred on behalf of the company, then no indemnity is needed. If no indemnity is needed, then there is no need of a deposit as security. If there is no need of a deposit and none is made which can be made liable under the contract for the payment of the amount of the policy, then nothing remains for the Auditor to certify, unless he shall be required to subscribe to a meaningless form. Therefore, there is no need of a certificate, and none should be given. It may be urged that the bonds and mortgages of the plaintiff are pledged, and will secure the good faith of the company in making the levy, collection, and assessment contemplated by the policy. This may be true. It is not necessary for me to determine whether it does or not. The law requires the deposit for another purpose: that of securing the amount of the policy to the representatives of the insured, in case of death, or when by the terms of the policy the payment is required to be made. The Auditor is authorized to receive a deposit for this, and no other purpose.

When an insurance company or corporation so contracts with its customers as not to become liable in case of death, but undertakes only to render services in the collection and disbursement of funds, it is difficult to see in what sense it is an insurance company. Yet this is modern co-operative insurance, as conducted by the companies in the field. This class of comnies may have, and doubtless has, its field of usefulness; but they did not exist, and were not under contemplation when the general insurance laws of this State were framed, and the Auditor rightfully refused them his certificate. The law was framed with reference to joint stock and mutual insurance companies only; and the plaintiff, by reason of the kind of business conducted by it, belongs to neither of these classes. The writ prayed for is refused.

The Security Mutual Life Society v. J. L. Brown, auditor, &c. This company (the plaintiff), though very different in its organization and in many of its essential features from the Home Life Association, conducts its business substantially in the same way as the Home, and the same course of reasoning leads me to the same conclusion in this case. The writ is refused. D. D. MIRACLE,

Presiding Judge.

The rulings of the Department and the decision of the court sustaining them apply to all associations of the class and character referred to, as well as to those whose certificates were canceled, and those immediately connected with the suit.

J. L. BROWN,

Auditor of State.

STATEMENT No. ONE.

RESOURCES.

Iowa Savings Bank...

Grinnell Savings Bank.

Iowa State Savings Bank.

Iowa County Loan & Savings Bank.

Iowa State Savings Institution..