Amend. 14.-Rights of Citizens Sec. 1.-Due Process-Police Power New York Life v. Dodge, 246 U. S. 357. License to do business.-A statute regulating the licensing of foreign insurance companies does not deny due process of law in giving to the insurance commissioner the discretion, after investigation, of issuing a license merely upon the giving of a surety bond or upon the deposit of bond or mortgage securities acceptable to him. Phoenix Ins. Co. v. McMaster, 237 U. S. 63. Regulating rates.-The business of insurance is one in which the public has such an interest that a statute authorizing the State insurance superintendent to regulate the rates does not unconstitutionally deprive a company of its liberty of contract. German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 233 U. S. 389. Contract outside of State.-A State statute which, as construed by the State supreme court, prohibits the making of a marine insurance contract outside the State on property then in the State, is invalid as a deprivation of liberty without due process of law. Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 589. Regulating liability on insurance policies.-A statute providing that, under every contract or policy of insurance thereafter made or issued by any insurance company connected with any tariff association, the assured may, in addition to the actual loss or damage suffered, recover 25 per cent of the amount of such actual loss, any provision or stipulation in such contract or policy to the contrary notwithstanding, does not deprive a company of its property without due process of law. German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Hale, 219 U. S. 307. A statute which cuts off any defense by a life insurance company, based upon false or fraudulent statements in the application, unless the matter misrepresented actually contributed to the death of the insured, does not deprive such a company of its liberty without due process of law. Northwestern Ins. Co. v. Riggs, 203 U. S. 243. Judgment for excessive assessments.-Pecuniary judgment for insured against insurance company for assessments in excess of maxima fixed by contract does not involve unconstitutional exercise of visitorial power over corporation. Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. Douds, 261 U. S. 476. Suicide. A statute providing that "in all suits upon policies of insurance on life hereafter issued by any company doing business in this State, to a citizen of this State, it shall be no defense that the insured committed suicide," unless contemplated Amend. 14.-Rights of Citizens Sec. 1.-Due Process-Police Power at the time of the application, is a legitimate exercise of State power. Whitfield v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 205 U. S. 489. Grain elevators. A general State statute regulating the business and charges of public warehousemen engaged in elevating and storing grain for profit does not deprive one of his property without due process of law. Brass v. North Dakota, 153 U. S. 405. Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 135. Budd v. New York, 143 U. S. 546. Merchants' Exch. v. Missouri, 248 U. S. 365. Banks and banking.-A statute creating a State banking board and directing it to levy upon every State bank an assessment for the purpose of creating a depositors' guaranty fund is not invalid as depriving a bank of property without due process of law. Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U. S. 104. Shallenberger v. Holstein Bank, 219 U. S. 114. Farmers Bank v. Federal Reserve Bank, 262 U. S. 649. Security Savings Bank v. California, 263 U. S. 282. Mines and mining.-A statute requiring entries in certain coal mines to be not less than a prescribed width does not violate this clause but is a proper exercise of the police power. Barrett v. Indiana, 229 U. S. 26. See also St. Louis, etc., Coal Co. v. Illinois, 185 U. S. 207. Relation of employer and employee.1-Statutes regulating the hours of labor of employees, the payment of wages, the age of employees in dangerous occupations, etc., are not invalid if they do not result in the taking of private property without due process of law. Bunting v. Oregon, 243 U. S. 426. Riley v. Massachusetts, 232 U. S. 671. Miller v. Wilson, 236 U. S. 373. Bosley v. McLaughlin, 236 U. S. 385. Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 380. Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 52. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Paul, 173 U. S. 409. 1 See same subject, pp. 598, 657, and 735. Amend. 14.-Rights of Citizens Sec. 1.-Due Process-Police Power New York Cent. R. Co. v. Bianc, 250 U. S. 596. Thornton v. Duffy, 254 U. S. 361. Lower Vein Co. v. Industrial Board, 255 U. S. 144. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. McGuire, 219 U. S. 549. Wilmington Star Min. Co. v. Fulton, 205 U. S. 60. Adams v. Tanner, 244 U. S. 590. Hitchman Coal, etc., Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U. S. 229. Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U. S. 1. McLean v. Arkansas, 211 U. S. 539. Rail, etc., Coal Co. v. Yaple, 236 U. S. 338. Ward & Gow v. Krinsky, 259 U. S. 503. Madera Co. v. Industrial Comm., 262 U. S. 499. N. Y. State Rys. v. Shuler, 265 U. S. 379. A strike by employees, intended to prevent through illegal picketing and intimidation of workers the continued manufacture of goods by their employer and having that effect, is not a conspiracy to restrain interstate commerce within the antitrust act, even though the strikers know that the products when made are to be shipped in interstate commerce to fill orders already received: Provided, There be no actual or attempted interference with the free transport of the products, when manufactured, from the factory to their destination in other States, or with their sale in those States. United Mine Workers v. Coronado, 259 U. S. 344. United Leather Workers v. Herkert Co., 265 U. S. 457. As to picketing and secondary boycotts in connection with labor disputes, see Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U. S. 312. In Wolff Co. v. Industrial Court (262 U. S. 522) the Kansas industrial relations act, requiring employers to pay fixed wages, forbidding strikes, and providing for compulsory arbitration, was held unconstitutional. Relation of mortgagor and mortgagee.-There has been no deprivation of property without due process of law by the enactment of a statute subsequent to the execution of a mortgage which solely affects the remedy, and does not substantially alter those rights of the mortgagee which existed at the time the mortgage was made. Red River Valley Bank v. Craig, 181 U. S. 548. Roller v. Holly, 176 U. S. 398. See First Natl. Bank v. Missouri, 263 U. S. 640, as to State law prohibiting establishment of branch banks. Municipal corporations.-Municipalities of the State are creatures of the State and the power of the State therefore is very broad and may be exercised in many ways affecting the property of, and giving rise to inequalities between, municipali Amend. 14.-Rights of Citizens Sec. 1.-Due Process-Police Power ties without encountering the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Stewart v. Kansas City, 239 U. S. 14. See also Chicago v. Sturges, 222 U. S. 313. Louisiana v. New Orleans, 109 U. S. 289. Heim v. McCall, 239 U. S. 175. Crane v. New York, 239 U. S. 195. A statute authorizing the annexation of two cities, contiguous or in close proximity to each other, does not deprive the citizens and taxpayers of the smaller city of property without due process of law, from the circumstances that the method of voting on the consolidation prescribed in the act has permitted the voters of the larger city to overpower the voters of the smaller city and compel the union without their consent and against their protest. Hunter. Pittsburgh, 207 U. S. 161. See also Kies v. Lowrey, 199 U. S. 233, as to changing boundaries of school district. Private corporations.-A statute which provides that on a return of "no property " upon an execution against a corporation an execution may be issued against any stockholder without notice to him or other preliminary step, and that the writ is to be enforced against his property to the extent of his unpaid subscription to the stock that he holds in the company, which amount the officer ascertains from the custodian of the records of the corporation, does not furnish due process of law. Coe v. Armour, 237 U. S. 413. See also Selig v. Hamilton, 234 U. S. 652. Bernheimer v. Converse, 206 U. S. 516. Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. S. 112. New Orleans Waterworks v. Louisiana, 185 U. S. 336. Regulating manufacture and sale of goods.'—Intoxicating liquors.-In Kidd v. Pearson (128 U. S. 16) the court said: A State has the right to prohibit or restrict the manufacture of intoxicating liquors within her limits; to prohibit all sale and traffic in them in said State; to inflict penalties for such manufacture and sale, and to provide regulations for the abatement as a common nuisance of the property used for such forbidden purposes; and such legislation by a State is a clear exercise of her undisputed police power which does not deprive any person of property without due process of law. See also Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County, 134 U. S. 31. Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623. Clark Distilling Co. v. Western Md. R. Co., 242 U. S. 311. Tracy v. Ginzberg, 205 U. S. 170. Eberle v. Michigan, 232 U. S. 700. Purity Extract, etc., Co. v. Lynch, 226 U. S. 192. Gray v. Connecticut, 159 U. S. 74. Eiger v. Garrity, 246 U. S. 97. Barbour v. Georgia, 249 U. S. 454. See same subject, pp. 142 and 734. 12703°-S. Doc. 157, 68-1-47 Amend. 14.-Rights of Citizens Sec. 1.-Due Process-Police Power Fertilizers. In an action to recover damages to a crop alleged to have resulted from fertilizer of inferior quality and containing deleterious ingredients, in which the plaintiff was nonsuited for not having procured a chemical analysis as required by the State law, held, that the requirement was not arbitrary, but reasonable and consistent with this clause. Jones v. Union Guano Co., 264 U. S. 171. Food laws generally.—A statute prohibiting the sale of food preservatives containing boric acid does not deprive the manufacturer of a property right without due process of law. Price v. Illinois, 238 U. S. 446. See also Arbuckle v. Blackburn, 191 U. S. 414. Schmidinger v. Chicago, 226 U. S. 578. Adams v. Milwaukee, 228 U. S. 572. New York v. Van De Carr, 199 U. S. 552. Hutchinson Ice Cream Co. v. Iowa, 242 U. S. 153. Capital City Dairy Co. v. Ohio, 183 U. S. 245. Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 683. Armour v. North Dakota, 240 U. S. 510. House v. Mayes, 219 U. S. 270. Corn Products, etc., Co. v. Eddy, 249 U. S. 427. Weigle v. Curtice Bros. Co., 248 U. S. 285. Hebe Co. v. Shaw, 248 U. S. 297. The power of a State to protect the public from imposition by sale of short-weight loaves of bread can not be exerted in such a way as arbitrarily to prohibit or interfere with, or impose unreasonable and unnecessary restrictions upon, the business of making and selling. Burns Baking Co. v. Bryan, 264 U. S. 504. Keeping of markets.-A municipal ordinance prohibiting the keeping of a private market within six squares of any public market of the city does not deprive anyone of property without due process of law. Natal v. Louisiana, 139 U. S. 621. Prohibiting sale of drugs by itinerant vendor.-A statute for bidding the sale by itinerant vendors of "any drug, nostrum, ointment, or application of any kind, intended for the treatment of disease or injury," although allowing the sale of such articles by other persons, does not violate this amendment. Baccus v. Louisiana, 232 U. S. 334. Prohibiting sales of merchandise in bulk.-A statute requiring sales of merchandise in bulk and not in the regular course of business to be recorded, and providing that such a sale without the formalities required by the statute shall be void as to creditors, does not deprive the owner of any property right protected by this amendment. Such a statute is within the lawful scope of the police power to prevent fraud in such transactions. Lemieux v. Young, 211 U. S. 489. Kidd, etc., Co. v. Musselman, 217 U. S. 461. |