Currie’s Administrators v. The Mutual Assurance Society
Virginia Supreme Court
14 Va. (4 Hen. & M.) 315 (1809)

- Written by Joe Cox, JD
Facts
In 1794, the Virginia legislature passed an act establishing The Mutual Assurance Society (Mutual) (defendant), allowing Virginians to insure their buildings against fire. The original 1794 legislation, established under special incorporation, provided a vague and general plan for establishing the entity. In 1805, the legislature passed a new statute that would allow premiums from owners of houses in town to be in a pool to pay for damages to buildings in town, whereas premiums from owners of houses in the country would be in a separate pool to pay damages for buildings in the country. In effect, this caused town-dwelling Virginians to pay a higher premium, including Currie, whose administrators (plaintiffs) filed suit to have the 1805 legislative act declared void. At the trial court level, the court ruled for Mutual, but Currie’s administrators appealed that ruling. In considering this matter on appeal, much of the focus was on the very nature of corporations, which, under British common law, were artificial entities allowed to exist only so far as the corporations’ existence assisted in rendering service to the public. Currie’s administrators advanced several arguments, including that with the 1805 legislative act, the legislature had dissolved the original corporate entity.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Roane, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.