Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Delta & Pine Land Co.
1934 U.S. LEXIS 703, 292 U.S. 143, 54 S. Ct. 634 (1934)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when it applies its own statutes to invalidate or enlarge the obligations of a contract validly made and delivered in another state, especially when the forum state's interest in the contract is minimal or incidental.
Facts:
- Delta & Pine Land Company (Delta), a Mississippi corporation, maintained its principal office in Memphis, Tennessee.
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company (Hartford), a Connecticut corporation, also conducted business in Tennessee through an agency in Memphis.
- In Tennessee, Delta applied for and received a fidelity bond from Hartford's Memphis agency to insure against employee dishonesty.
- The bond was executed and delivered in Tennessee, making it a Tennessee contract.
- The bond contained a provision requiring that any claim for loss must be made within fifteen months of the termination of the suretyship for the defaulting employee.
- An employee of Delta, H.H. Harris, embezzled funds while working in Mississippi.
- The suretyship for Harris terminated on December 31, 1929.
- Delta discovered the loss on May 20, 1931, and filed a claim with Hartford on June 22, 1931, more than fifteen months after the suretyship's termination.
Procedural Posture:
- Delta & Pine Land Company sued Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company in a Mississippi circuit court (trial court).
- Hartford argued the claim was barred by a 15-month limitation in the contract, which was valid under Tennessee law.
- Delta demurred, arguing that a Mississippi statute voided the limitation.
- The Mississippi trial court sustained Delta's demurrer, and upon Hartford's refusal to plead further, entered a default judgment for Delta.
- Hartford, as appellant, appealed to the Supreme Court of Mississippi.
- The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that a state statute effectively made the agreement a Mississippi contract.
- Hartford appealed the decision of the Mississippi Supreme Court to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Mississippi statute that deems all insurance contracts on interests within the state to be Mississippi contracts, thereby invalidating a contractual time limit for filing claims, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when applied to a fidelity bond that was negotiated, executed, and delivered in Tennessee where the time limit is valid?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Roberts
Yes. The application of Mississippi's statutes to invalidate the contractual provision violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A state cannot extend its laws beyond its own borders to destroy or impair the right of citizens to make a contract that is lawful in the state where it was made. While Mississippi has an interest because the loss occurred within its borders, this interest is too slight to justify enlarging the contractual obligations of the parties. The contract was a Tennessee contract, and its performance in Mississippi involved, at most, the 'casual payment of money.' A legislative policy that attempts to convert contracts validly consummated elsewhere into contracts of the forum, regardless of the relative importance of the forum's interests, conflicts with the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the constitutional limits on a state's power to apply its own law to interstate contracts, a key principle in conflict of laws jurisprudence. The Court's holding prevents a forum state from automatically applying its local public policy to invalidate terms of a contract lawfully made elsewhere, particularly when its connection to the transaction is not substantial. The case establishes that the Due Process Clause protects vested contractual rights from being impaired by a state with only a slight interest in the matter. This precedent requires courts to weigh the forum state's interests against those of the state where the contract was made, rather than mechanically applying forum law.
Unlock the full brief for Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Delta & Pine Land Co.