Hartmann v. Masters

269 F. 483, 50 App. D.C. 141, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1869
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedDecember 6, 1920
DocketNo. 3362
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 269 F. 483 (Hartmann v. Masters) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hartmann v. Masters, 269 F. 483, 50 App. D.C. 141, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1869 (D.C. Cir. 1920).

Opinion

VAN ORSDER, Associate Justice.

This appeal is from a final decree entered in the matter of the receivership of the Royal Insurance Company.

The cause originated in a suit by appellants Hartmann and Cohill against the Royal Insurance Company, Samuel J. Masters, John B. Kinnear, and Frank T. Evans for the appointment of a receiver for the Royal Insurance Company, and to recover certain sums of money from Masters and Kinnear; Evans being merely a formal defendant. From an order appointing a trustee for the stockholders of the Royal Insurance Company and for other purposes, the case was appealed to this court. Masters et al. v. Hartmann et al., 45 App. D. C. 253.

From a comprehensive statement in the opinion in that case, it appears that the Royal Insurance Company, with a capital stock of $1,000, held by Hartmann, Cohill, and Evans, was doing an industrial insurance business in the District of Columbia. The Modern Workmen of the World, a Virginia corporation, organized by Masters, Kin-near,' and one R. P. Andrews, who were, its board of directors and empowered to represent the corporation in all matters, was a mutual company, with no capital stock, engaged in issuing certificates to members entitling them to sick benefits and life insurance. It further appears, as stated in the opinion in the former case (45 App. D. C. 255), that on—

“January 24, 1911, Masters, Kinnear, and Andrews proposed to the Royal Insurance Company to transfer to it all of its liabilities and assets. The assignment was made in writing, and the Royal Insurance Company assumed all of the liabilities of the Modern Workmen of the World, and its obligations to [485]*485certificate holders. Notice was given to these certificate holders, and a printed slip, called a rider, was attached to their certificates, showing that the Iioyal Insurance Company had assumed all liability. By agreement between the parties, one-half of the capital stock of the Royal Insurance Company was assigned to Masters, Kinnear, and Andrews, who became directors of the Royal Insurance Company, with Hartmann, Cohill and Evans. Masters was elected president and Kinnear treasurer. By this arrangement the directors were equally divided and no business could be transacted unless one of the. divided forces should co-operate with the others. The Modern Workmen of the World had assets at the time amounting to $42,138.44, which were duly assigned to the Royal Insurance Company, and the possession of which was in Kinnear, as treasurer of the Royal Insurance Company. The certificate holders of the Modern Workmen of the World paid their assessments to the Royal Insurance Company, and claims by them were paid by the Royal Insurance Company, as were also those of the certificate holders of the Royal Insurance Company.”

Difficulties.arose between the insurance commissioner and the Royal Insurance Company. Masters, Kinnear, and Andrews refused to attend meetings of the directors of the Royal Insurance Company, and proceeded to close the office of the company and dispose of its office furniture. They also held the securities assigned by the Modern Workmen of the World to the Royal Insurance Company, assuming to do so as trustees for the Modern Workmen of the World. This operated to practically suspend the business of the Royal Insurance Company. When it became evident that Hartmann, Cohill, and Evans could not procure a meeting of the stockholders of the Royal Insurance Company, this suit was begun. In the former case, we held that Masters, Kinnear, and Andrews—

“had no right, without the authorization of the Royal Insurance Company, to take the assets formerly assigned by the Modern Workmen of the World and hold the same for the Modern Workmen of the World, as they professed to do. They had come into possession of these assets as directors and officers of the Royal Insurance Company. The Modern Workmen of the World had accepted the transfer, and it had retired from business. They were self-constituted trustees of the supposed interest of the Modern Workmen of the World. * * * The assets of the Royal Insurance Company, including those received from the Modern Workmen of the World, are to be conserved and used for the benefit of the policy holders of the Royal Insurance Company and the Modern Workmen of the World, who have accepted the liability of the Royal Insurance Company, and not for that of the stockholders of the Royal Insurance Company. They are in the nature of a trust for the benefit of the certificate holders in that company.” 45 App. D. C. 258, 259.

In this situation we ordered that a receiver be appointed for the Royal Insurance Company, with directions to “take possession of its property and undertake to reorganize and manage its affairs under the supervision of the court.”

In compliance with the mandate of this court, the • court below appointed a receiver, and finally succeeded in compelling Masters and Kinnear to turn over to the receiver the assets of the Royal Life Insurance Company in their possession. In the decree here appealed from, in which the receiver is discharged, the court found that the reorganization of the Royal Insurance Company was “neither necessary nor practicable,” and directed the receiver to pay the costs of the receivership, to cancel all the outstanding certificates of stock of the [486]*486Royal .Insurance Company, and “to deliver to the clerk of the court all moneys, bonds, notes, and other evidences of indebtedness, and all books, records, papers, and other things in his hands as receiver.”

The court referred the cause to the auditor under the following findings and instructions:

“(a) The court finds that the Royal Life Insurance Company discontinued its business on February 19, 1912, and failed to perform its contracts of insurance with its policy holders after, that date.
“(b) The auditor will state an account showing the liability of the Royal Life Insurance Company, at the time of filing this report, to each and the total to all of its policy holders, whose policies were in full force and efEeet on February 19, 1912, including the policy holders of the Modern Workmen of the World who accepted the liability of the Royal Life Insurance Company. The status, claim, and right of each such policy holder shall be settled and stated in accordance with the practice in cases of failed and dissolved insurance corporations.
“(c) The auditor will show in said account, where ascertainable, the names of these policy holders who are living and of those persons entitled to the amounts owing on the policies of those who are dead; and he will show why they are so entitled, whether under the terms of the policy, by assignment, by subrogation, or as next of kin or otherwise.
“(d) The auditor will give such notice of the proceedings before him as he deems adequate, by publication in such paper or papers and for such period, not less than 30 days, as the auditor may deem best; and each party hereto is directed to give to the auditor all pertinent information in his possession or knowledge. The auditor will take such testimony as may be necessary, and will report his findings and make his recommendations to the court with all convenient speed, together with the testimony taken before him.
“(e) The auditor will report the balance to be left from the funds after deducting court costs, the costs of this reference, and other expenses and expenditures authorized by this and prior orders of the court.

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

Related

Howell Turpentine Co. v. Commissioner
6 T.C. 364 (U.S. Tax Court, 1946)
Royal Union Life Ins. v. Gross
76 F.2d 219 (Eighth Circuit, 1935)
Hartman v. Masters
19 F.2d 670 (D.C. Circuit, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
269 F. 483, 50 App. D.C. 141, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartmann-v-masters-cadc-1920.