Endowment & Benevolent Ass'n v. State

35 Kan. 253
Supreme Court of Kansas·Decided January 15, 1886·Published·Cited by 9 cases

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] mutual 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.)

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

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

35 Kan. 253 (Endowment & Benevolent Ass'n v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)