Opinion of the Court.

331 U.S.

Contemporaneously with this development of the policy of this Court, applying the full faith and credit clause in support of membership obligations in fraternal benefit societies, it has considered the same clause in several related situations. For example, it has applied it in requiring the Minnesota courts to recognize the obligation of members of the safety fund department of a Connecticut life insurance company to meet assessments levied upon them pursuant to a mutual assessment plan valid under the laws of Connecticut. Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. Ibs, 237 U. S. 662. This was a unanimous opinion written by Mr. Justice J. R. Lamar. In another unanimous opinion in Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. Barber, 245 U. S. 146, at p. 150, Mr. Justice Holmes said, "The powers given by the Connecticut charter are entitled to the same credit elsewhere as the judgment of the Connecticut court. Supreme Council of the Royal Arcanum v. Green, 237 U. S. 531, 542." See also, John Hancock Ins. Co. v. Yates, 299 U. S. 178, 182-183.

Without reliance upon the full faith and credit clause, a somewhat similar result has been recognized in the protective effect of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, prohibiting the deprivation of any person of his property without due process of law. A like policy underlies § 10 of Article I of the Constitution, prohibiting a state from passing any law impairing the obligation of contracts. Accordingly, in Home Ins. Co. v. Dick, 281 U. S. 397, in an opinion by Mr. Justice Brandeis, this Court relied upon the Fourteenth Amendment in dealing with ordinary insurance policies. It upheld unanimously the effectiveness of a contractual one-year limitation upon the right to sue for recovery of a loss under a marine fire insurance policy, where such limitation was good in Mexico (in which country the insurance was written and was to be performed), as against a two-year general statute of limitations of the state of

586

Opinion of the Court.

the forum (Texas). In Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Delta & Pine Land Co., 292 U. S. 143, in an opinion by Mr. Justice Roberts, the Court again relied upon the Fourteenth Amendment. There it upheld unanimously a 15-month contractual limitation upon the right to sue upon a fidelity bond. This limitation was valid in Tennessee, where such bond was entered into, and it was here upheld against the local policy of the state of the forum (Mississippi).

In a related but readily distinguishable series of cases dealing with conflicting claims arising under Workmen's Compensation Acts, emphasis has been placed upon the rule stated by Mr. Justice Stone, for a unanimous Court, in Alaska Packers Assn. v. Comm'n, 294 U. S. 532, 547. He there said:

"... the conflict is to be resolved, not by giving automatic effect to the full faith and credit clause, compelling the courts of each state to subordinate its own statutes to those of the other, but by appraising the governmental interests of each jurisdiction, and turning the scale of decision according to their weight."

In Pacific Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n, 306 U. S. 493, again speaking for the Court, he added at p. 502:

"And in the case of statutes, the extra-state effect of which Congress has not prescribed, as it may under the constitutional provision, we think the conclusion is unavoidable that the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events."

See also, Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Hunt, 320 U. S. 430, in which, as Chief Justice, he upheld the controlling effect of the full faith and credit clause as against the law of the forum.

The language quoted from the Pacific Ins. Co. case, supra, also was quoted with approval in Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287, at p. 296. In the latter case, on the basis of the full faith and credit clause, this Court gave effect to the law of the domicil in upholding the validity of a divorce, as against the law of the forum.

We find no conflict between the position taken in the instant case and that taken in the foregoing cases or in Griffin v. McCoach, 313 U. S. 498, Hoopeston Co. v. Cullen, 318 U. S. 313, or in other decisions of this Court upon which reliance has been placed to support an opposite conclusion.

Accepting the view, expressed in these related cases, that this Court should not give what Mr. Justice Stone called a mere "automatic effect to the full faith and credit clause," " this Court consistently has upheld, on the basis of evaluated public policy, the law of the state of incorporation of a fraternal benefit society as the law that should control the validity of the terms of membership in that corporation. The weight of public policy behind the general statute of South Dakota, which seeks to avoid certain provisions in ordinary contracts, does not equal that which makes necessary the recognition of the same terms of membership for members of fraternal benefit societies wherever their beneficiaries may be. This is especially obvious where the state of the forum, with full information as to those terms of membership, has permitted such societies to do business and secure members within its borders. There would be little sound public poliey in permitting the courts of South Dakota to recognize an action to collect

27 Alaska Packers Assn. v. Comm'n, supra, at p. 547.

586

BLACK, J., dissenting.

the full benefits to be derived from a membership in the petitioner society, while, at the same time, nullifying other integral terms of that same membership which limit certain rights of beneficiaries to enforce collection of such benefits. It is of the essence of the full faith and credit clause that, if a state gives some faith and credit to the public acts of another state by permitting its own citizens to become members of, and benefit from, fraternal benefit societies organized by such other state, then it must give full faith and credit to those public acts and must recognize the burdens and limitations which are inherent in such memberships. In this case, the state of the forum has licensed the society to do business within its borders. It is concerned as much with the validity and fairness of the obligations to be enforced by assessments against its citizens who become members of the society as it is with the benefits to be claimed by those who become its beneficiaries. In this case, the full faith and credit clause, therefore, requires that effect be given to the six-month limit, prescribed by the society and authorized by Ohio, upon the right to commence this action. Such limit expired before this action was commenced and the judgment of the Supreme Court of South Dakota in favor of the respondent accordingly is

Reversed.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, and MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE join, dissenting.

The Order of United Commercial Travelers is a corporation chartered under the laws of Ohio with power to do a fraternal insurance business. It sells contracts of insurance in Ohio. South Dakota has licensed the corporation to sell fraternal insurance policies in that state. Under this permission, the corporation has an office, called a local council, in Black Hills, South Dakota, vested with

power to administer "the business and fraternal affairs of the Order."

The insured, a citizen and resident of South Dakota, applied to the Black Hills office for membership and an insurance policy. After the application had been accepted and an insurance certificate signed at the petitioner's home office in Ohio, it was "forwarded by the said Defendant corporation to South Dakota for delivery to the insured." From then until his death in South Dakota, the insured paid his premiums to the corporation's Black Hills office. During all that period his beneficiary lived in that state. This action was brought in a court of that state on behalf of the beneficiary after the corporation had refused to pay the claim.

The association denied liability because this suit had not been commenced within six months after the association had disallowed the beneficiary's claim. This is required by the corporation's constitution which is incorporated by reference into its contracts of insurance. And in a series of cases, cited in the Court's opinion, the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that suits brought in Ohio courts on mutual, stock company, or fraternal insurance contracts, may be barred by contractual arrangements between the parties which require that suit be brought within a shorter period than that provided by the Ohio limitations statutes.

But the South Dakota Supreme Court has held that a statute of that state which provides that "every provision in a contract restricting a party from enforcing his rights under it by usual legal proceedings in ordinary tribunals or limiting his time to do so, is void," S. D. Code § 10.0705 (1939), renders the limitation provision in this contract unenforceable in her courts. This Court today reverses the South Dakota decision on the ground that its refusal to enforce the private contract is a denial of full faith and credit to the "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings" of Ohio. U. S. Const., Art. IV, § 1.