matter was referred to a master and the com plainant endeavored to subpoena defendant's president. Being unable to do so, the mas ter reported such inability to the court; and apparently entertained the suspicion that de fendant's president was evading service. The court ordered the defendant to produce its president, and when it failed to do so, granted a preliminary injunction as prayed for in the complaint. The Court of Appeals says this order was unwarranted. It knows of no legal duty • imposed upon a corporation to produce its officer as a witness when the process of the court cannot reach him. "The duty of an officer of a corporation is prescribed by law, or by the articles of incorporation, or by the by-laws of the corporation. The power of a corporation over its officers has respect only to the duties to the corporation which the law imposes. We know of no legal duty imposed upon an officer of a corporation to appear as a witness against that corporation, except in obedience to the writ of subpoena of a court duly served upon him. We know of no power in the corporation, or any duty devolving upon it, to compel its officer to appear as a witness before a court. We know of no right in a court to compel a corporation to produce itg officer as an ad verse witness. The law furnishes ample ma chinery to procure the testimony of any wit ness, in the service of its writ and by pro ceedings for contempt for disobedience of the writ, or, if the witness is beyond the jurisdiction of the court, by deposition or upon commission." In addition the action of the lower court is characterized as an at tempt to determine the merits of the pending motion for injunction, when neither the record nor the marshal's return disclosed any jurisdiction over defendant's person. INSURANCE. (COMBINATIONS BETWFEN INSURANCE COMPANIES — CONSTITUTIONALITY OK PROHIHITORY STATUTE—GRANT OK SPECIAL PRIVILEGES — GENERAI. AND UNIKORM OPERATION OK LAWS — LIIIERTV OK CONTRACT.) • UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA.
In Greenwich Insurance Company v. Car roll, 125 Federal Reporter 121, the constitu
tionality of Iowa Code, Sees. 1750 and 1755, prohibiting combinations between fire in surance companies in relation to rates, agents' commissions and manner of doing business, is determined, first in view of the provision of the State Constitution against the granting oi special privileges and im munities and that requiring all laws when they can be made applicable, to be general and of uniform operation, and second, as to whether the statute violates the liberty of the contract secured by the I4th amendment to the Federal Constitution. The statute is held valid so far as the provisions of the State Constitution are concerned, but is held to violate the I4th amendment. Considering the objections under the State Constitution, the court says that the law has a uniform operation. No one can expect that all laws shall operate upon all people. Classifica tions can be made providing they are not arbitrarily made. All will agree that there must be rules and regulations applicable to insurance companies not applicable to other corporations. Hundreds of statutes have been enacted in Iowa known by all to be in tended to apply to a single city or town or corporation or trade; and so it is as to grant ing immunities to some which are denied to others. Exempting fanners and merchants, manufacturers, etc., from liability in case an employé is injured by another employe's negligence and holding a railroad liable, illustrates the whole proposition. After qupting from a number of judges' general statements as to liberty of contract, the court says that the slightest knowledge of insurance will persuade any one that com panies must have some arrangements and must make some contracts with other com panies. Other classes of both men and as sociations must do the same and both the laws and constitution permit it, and to single out insurance companies and to say that they shall not, is neither logical nor allowable un der the I4th amendment. The following cases are cited as "covering the entire ques tion." People т-. Orange County Road Const. Co. (N. Y.) 67 N. E. 129; Republic Co. v. State (Ind. Sup.) 66 N. E. 1006; State
