Endowment & Benevolent Ass'n v. State

35 Kan. 253
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedJanuary 15, 1886
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 35 Kan. 253 (Endowment & Benevolent Ass'n v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Endowment & Benevolent Ass'n v. State, 35 Kan. 253 (kan 1886).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Yalentine, J.:

This was an action brought by the state of Kansas in the district court of Lyon county against the Endowment and Benevolent Association of Kansas, to oust it from the exercise of certain alleged corporate powers, and to dissolve the corporation. The case was tried before the court, without a jury, upon an agreed statement of facts, and upon such agreed statement of facts the court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant; and the defendant, as plaintiff in error, brings the case to this court for review.

The plaintiff, defendant in error, claims that the defendant, plaintiff in error, is exercising the powers and functions of a mutual life insurance company, in violation of chapter 131 of the Laws of Kansas of 1885. The defendant admits that it has not complied with any of the terms or provisions of said chapter 131; but claims that it is not required to do so, and this for the following reasons, among others: First, the act does not apply to the defendant; second, but if it does, then it is unconstitutional and void to that extent. Does the act apply to the defendant? The defendant claims that it does not, for two reasons: (1.) It claims that the act applies only to mutual life insurance associations, and that the defendant is not such an association. (2.) It claims that the act can apply only to such mutual life insurance associations as have been or may be organized since the act took effect, and that the defendant’s organization dates from January 7, 1885, while the act did not take effect until March 14, 1885. The whole question as to whether the act applies to the defendant, or not, we think depends entirely upon the question whether the defendant is engaged in the business of life insurance, or not. That it is an incorporated association, doing business on a [255]*255mutual and coSperative plan, with mutual rights, privileges and obligations among its members, it admits; but it claims that it is not engaged in any kind of life insurance business. Indeed, it claims that it is not engaged in an insurance business of any kind, and is not an insurance company or association of any kind. It claims that it takes no risks which may with any degree of propriety be called insurance risks; and that it makes no difference to it or to any of its members whether persons joining the association are old or young, in good health or in bad health, or whether they are likely to live long or to die soon; and, indeed, it claims that the association is nothing more than “a loaner of money.” On the other hand, the plaintiff claims that the defendant is a mutual life insurance association, and nothing else. In our opinion, if the defendant is not engaged to any extent in the business of mutual life insurance, then the act will not apply to it; but if it is engaged in any such business, then the act will apply. The title to the act reads as follows: “An act providing for the organization and control of mutual life insurance associations in this state,” and, of course, unless the defendant is engaged.in the business of “mutual life insurance,” within the meaning of this title, the act itself cannot apply to the defendant. But if the defendant is engaged in this kind of business, then we think the act will apply, and not only by the terms of this title, but also by the express provisions of the act itself. It will be seen from an inspection of the body of the act that it was the intention of the legislature that the act should apply to all mutual life insurance associations organized on the assessment plan, with a few exceptions, whether the associations were organized before the act took effect, or afterward. (See § 30 of the act.)

For the purpose of determining whether the defendant is engaged in the transaction of a mutual life insurance business, or not, we shall now proceed to consider the nature and character of its organization and the kind of business which it does in fact transact. The association is a corporation, and was organized on January 7, 1885. The charter is broad enough to authorize it to transact a mutual life insurance busi[256]*256ness upon the assessment plan, and also upon both an endowment plan and a death or mortuary plan, if it so chooses; but of coui’se its charter is not conclusive as to the kind of business which it does in fact transact. But the kind of business which it does in fact transact is as follows: Its general laws make all white persons, male or female, between the ages of 18 and 55, of good moral character and temperate habits, eligible to become members of the association, and the association receives such persons as members. There are two funds provided for: (1.) The expense fund. (2.) The endowment or benefit fund. The members are divided into two classes as to the amounts of the endowments or benefits; one class receiving a $3,000 certificate, the amount thereof to be paid to the member in five equal installments, if he or she lives, and in case of his or her death, as hereafter stated; and the other class receiving a $5,000 certificate, also to be paid in five equal installments, or otherwise as above mentioned for the $3,000 certificate, and all these installments are represented by coupons attached to the certificate. The membership fees, annual dues and assessments, are made larger or smaller to correspond to some extent with the amount of the endowment or benefit certificate. The members are also classified as to age, those becoming members at an earlier age paying a less amount on assessments than those becoming members at a more advanced age, and the amounts to be received by the members as endowments to become due at more widely separated periods of time. It is scarcely necessary for us to say anything further with regard to the membership fees or annual dues, or other items of the expense fund, for those items furnish but little proof as to whether the association is an insurance company, or not, or whether it does an insurance business, or not. That fund is used merely for the purpose of paying the expenses of the association. We shall therefore confine our investigation principally to the manner of creating and using the endowment or benefit fund. This fund is created by assessments upon the members, and may possibly be augmented in some rare instances by interest received on loans made from such fund. [257]*257These assessments may be made at any time, and are made upon all the members of the association; but not less than fifteen nor more than twenty-four assessments are permitted to be made in any one year. We might take any class of the members for the purpose of illustrating what we wish to say; but taking the class of youngest members—those between the ages of 18 and 25 years — and taking those whose certificates of membership authorize them to participate in the endowment fund to the extent of $5,000, and the assessment on each member will be $1.50, and each member will be entitled to receive from the endowment fund every ten years from the date of his membership $1,000, until he receives the entire sum of $5,000; that is, five coupons of $1,000 each are attached to each certificate of membership, and one of such coupons becomes due and is payable by the association to the member evéry ten years from the date of membership for the period of fifty years.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States v. Hobbs
114 P.2d 871 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1941)
Heffelfinger v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
87 F.2d 991 (Eighth Circuit, 1937)
Drysch ex rel. Boeing v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
4 N.E.2d 530 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1936)
Commissioner v. Illinois Life Ins.
80 F.2d 280 (Seventh Circuit, 1935)
Heffelfinger v. Commissioner
32 B.T.A. 1232 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1935)
Hosmer v. Mutual Reserve Insurance
32 P.2d 505 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1934)
Moore v. Life & Annuity Ass'n
148 P. 983 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1915)
Hart v. Life & Annuity Ass'n
120 P. 363 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1912)
Rockhold v. Canton Masonic Mutual Benevolent Society
2 L.R.A. 420 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1889)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
35 Kan. 253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/endowment-benevolent-assn-v-state-kan-1886.