Starr v. Glueck-186 Ind. 405. through and by which justice is administered to the people. It may be proper to say that this court in the consideration of the case has wholly disregarded what is designated as the finding of facts filed with the clerk of the trial court. The judgment is treated as resting solely upon the facts disclosed by the information and the sworn answer of appellant thereto. The record shows no reversible error. Judgment affirmed. NOTE.-Reported in 114 N. E. 866. Contempt: (a) by publication or statement reflecting upon a judge in the performance of ministerial duties, 15 Ann. Cas. 658; (b) disclaimer of intent as defense to a charge of contempt by newspaper publication, 13 Ann. Cas. 503, 9 Cyc 21, 25, 13 C. J. 34; (c) indirect contempt, language constituting, 9 Cyc 21, 13 C. J. 34; (d) power of court to punish, 9 Cyc 26, 13 C. J. 46. STARR v. GLUECK ET AL. [No. 23287. Filed June 8, 1917.] APPEAL.-Moot Question.-Transfer of License.-Expiration before Perfecting Appeal.-Dismissal.-On an appeal from a judgment sustaining a demurrer to a petition for the transfer of a retail liquor license and granting the transfer, where the record shows that the license involved must have expired before the appeal was perfected, the appeal presents a moot question and will be dismissed. From Lake Superior Court; Virgil S. Reiter, Judge. Proceedings on the petition of Harry H. Glueck to transfer a retail liquor license to Joseph Feczko, against which Oliver Starr remonstrates. From a judgment permitting the transfer, the remonstrant appeals. (Transferred from the Appellate Court under §1405 Burns 1914, Acts 1901 p. 590.) Appeal dismissed. L. V. Cravens and Oliver Starr, for appellant. Starr v. Glueck-186 Ind. 405. LAIRY, J.-Appellee Glueck filed his petition before the board of commissioners of Lake county under the provisions of §8323n Burns 1914, Acts 1911 p. 244, 253, for an order permitting him to transfer a license for the sale of intoxicating liquors held by him to Feczko. Appellant Starr appeared and filed a remonstrance against the transfer of such license, which was overruled by the board, and the order permitting the transfer was made. Appellant appealed to the Lake Superior Court where a demurrer addressed to his remonstrance was sustained; whereupon he refused to amend or plead further and judgment was entered permitting the transfer of the license. From this judgment appellant prosecutes this appeal and assigns as error the ruling of the court in sustaining the demurrer to his remonstrance. The record shows that the license which was the subject of the litigation and which was transferred under the judgment of the trial court was granted on July 6, 1914. Under the law the license was granted for a term of one year and would expire one year from that date. §8323t Burns 1914, Acts 1913 p. 322. The transcript in this case was filed in the Appellate Court on August 7, 1915. It thus appears that the license which is the subject of litigation had been transferred and had expired before the appeal was perfected. The appeal presents a moot question and for that reason it must be dismissed. Hale v. Berg (1907), 41 Ind. App. 48, 83 N. E. 357, and cases there cited. Appeal dismissed. NOTE. Reported in 116 N. E. 419. Moot question, dismissal of appeal, 5 Ann. Cas. 626; Ann. Cas. 1912 C 247; 3 Cyc 188; 4 C. J. 577. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. State-186 Ind. 407. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. STATE OF INDIANA. [No. 23,103. Filed June 20, 1917.] 1. STATUTES. - Construction. - Departmental Interpretation. Application. The rule that a long-continued construction of a statute by a governmental department which has governed the conduct of that department in its official administration of such statute, is entitled to consideration, can be invoked only where the language of the statute is doubtful or ambiguous. p. 410. 2. TAXATION. - Foreign Insurance Companies. — Receipts. — Bonuses and Dividends.-Statute.-Under §10216 Burns 1914, Acts 1891 p. 199, 222, taxing foreign insurance companies on gross receipts from premiums received in this State, less losses actually paid therein, where a foreign stock corporation issued life insurance policies for fixed premiums and thereafter declared bonuses or dividends from the company's surplus earnings, which the policy-holders might receive in cash, apply on future premiums or in purchasing paid-up insurance, such company is liable for taxes on the bonuses or dividends applied by policy-holders in payment of premiums or for the purchase of paid-up insurance. p. 411. From Marion Superior Court, sitting as a court of claims (87,202); V. G. Clifford, Linn D. Hay, W. W. Thornton, Theophilus J. Moll and John J. Rochford, Judges. Action by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company against the State of Indiana. From a judgment for the State, the plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. S. D. Miller, F. C. Dailey, W. H. Thompson, W. H. H. Miller and C. C. Shirley, for appellant. Evan B. Stotsenburg, Attorney-General, Leslie R. Naftzger and Wilbur T. Gruber, for the State. SPENCER, J.-It is provided by §10216 Burns 1914, Acts 1891 p. 199, 222, that: "Every insurance company not organized under the laws of this state, and doing business therein, shall, in the months of January and Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. State-186 Ind. 407. July of each year, report to the auditor of state under oath of the president and secretary the gross amount of all receipts received in the state of Indiana on account of insurance premiums for the six months last preceding, ending on the last day of December and June of each year next preceding, and shall at the time of making such report pay into the treasury of the state the sum of three dollars on every one hundred dollars of such receipts, less losses actually paid within the state," or suffer certain penalties for failure to comply with the provisions of the statute. During the month of January, 1912, appellant, which is an insurance company not organized under the laws of Indiana, reported to the auditor of state that during the last six months of the year 1911 it received from its policy-holders within this State on account of insurance premiums the sum of $883,379.54, and that during the same period of time it paid death losses in Indiana amounting to $205,580.71. A tax of three per cent. on the difference between these sums was thereafter duly paid into the state treasury. The report filed with the auditor, however, also showed that during the period in question a certain sum of $55,277.08, referred to as "dividends and industrial bonuses," had been applied by policy-holders of the company in reduction of their premiums, or in the purchase of additional paidup insurance, and demand was made by the auditor for the payment of a three per cent. tax on this sum. To avoid the penalties prescribed by the statute appellant paid the additional tax, under protest, and instituted this action to recover the sum so paid. From an adverse finding and judgment below, appellant has prosecuted this appeal and insists that its motion for a new trial should have been sustained. The evidence is substantially without dispute and discloses, in addition to the facts above stated, that, during Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. State-186 Ind. 407. the period in question and prior thereto, appellant was a stock corporation engaged in the general business of writing life insurance on what is known as the level premium plan. Under this plan the amount of the periodic premium to be paid by the insured is definitely fixed in the contract of insurance and remains unchanged throughout the history of the policy. This premium is made up of two elements: (1) The net premium, which represents the expected cost of effecting the insurance, as determined with reference to the tables of mortality and interest; and (2) the "loading," or margin, which is added to the net premium in order to provide for the expenses of the business and to meet such unusual contingencies as may arise. Whenever the insurance company experienced a more favorable mortality than was expected, or succeeded in effecting substantial reductions in its expense rates, or received good returns from its investments, there arose a surplus fund of which it was considered equitable by appellant's officers to return a part to the policy-holders. The return made to the holder of an industrial policy was termed a "bonus," while the payment made to the holder of an intermediate or ordinary policy was designated as a "dividend," whether the policy was participating or nonparticipating. However, it must be borne in mind that no legal significance attaches to the use of either term under the circumstances in this case, nor is the fact material that some, though not all, of appellant's intermediate and ordinary contracts provided for the participation by the holder in the earnings of the business. At the end of the year 1910, the company, on the basis of its financial condition at that time, determined the amount and scale of dividends and bonuses which should be paid in the year 1911, and then appropriated and set aside that amount as a liability to be discharged |