Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/437

 200 O.& Opi.uion o the our. a carrier of messages that a railroad company doce as a carrier of goods." While the general principles applied in these cases are not to be denied, there is a class of cases which hold that contracts between citizens of different States are not the subjects of interstate commerce, simply because they are negotiated be- tween citizens of different States, or by the agent of a company in another State, where the contract itself is to be completed and cried out wholly within the borders of a State, although such contracts incidentally affect interstate trade. As in the cases involving insurance policies, it has been held �that issuing them in one State and sending them to another, to be there delivered to the insured upon payment of premium, is not a transaction of interstate commerce. Paul v. �irgna, 8 Wall. 168; Hooper v. Ca/orna, 155 U.S. 648; ,Vw York L,ie Inuranc Co. v. Cranny, 178 U.S. 389. In Paul v. �irg/na, Mr. Justice Field, delivering the opinion of the court, said (p. 183): "Issuing a policy of insurance is not a transaction of com- merce. The policies are simple contracts of indemnity against lo by fire, entered into between the corporations and the assured, for  consideration paid by the latter. These con- tracts are not articles of commerce in any proper meaning of the word. They are not subjects of trade and barter offered in the market as something having an existence and value in- dependent to the parties to them. They are not commodities to be shipped or forwarded from one State to another, and then put up for sale. They are like other personal contracts between parties which are completed by their signature and the transfer of the consideration. Such contracts are not inter-. state transactions, though the parties may be domJelled in different States. The policies do not take effect-are not executed contracts--until delivered by the agent in Virginia. They are, then, local transactions, and are governed by the local law. They do not constitute a paxt of the commerce between the States any more than a contract for the purchase

�