People ex rel. Stout v. Chapman

12 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 222
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 15, 1875
StatusPublished

This text of 12 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 222 (People ex rel. Stout v. Chapman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People ex rel. Stout v. Chapman, 12 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 222 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1875).

Opinion

Daotels, J.:

The relator was appointed receiver of the Asbury Life Insurance Company, under chapter 902 of the Laws of 1869. At the time of the appointment, the company had on deposit, in the office of the superintendent of the insurance department of this State, two certificates of the United States, amounting to the sum of $6,000, for the security of a registered policyholder, and $100,000 in like certificates, for the security and benefit of all its other policyholders. The latter were placed on deposit in such office-on the 6th day of April, 1868, before the passage of the act under which the appointment of the relator as receiver was made. Upon an examination into the affairs of the company, it was found that its assets and securities were less than its obligations, including those entered into for the purpose of insurance, and an application was made to the respondent, by the relator, for a sale of all the securities on deposit in his office, arid the payment of their proceeds over to him, on receiving his receipt for the same. This was declined by the superintendent, although assented to by the State treasurer, and the relator moved, upon notice, for a mandamus requiring such sale to be made, and the proceeds paid over to him. The application was denied, and the relator appealed; and it is now claimed that this decision was erroneously made. Whether it was or not, is the only point before the court upon the present appeal. The securities filed for the benefit of the company’s unregistered policyholders, amounting to the sum of $100,000, were placed in the superintendent’s hands, in compliance with statutory provisions then existing, which prevented life insurance companies organized under their authority from transacting the business of life insurance until that was done; and when they were filed, they were afterward to be held as security for these policyholders, in the company filing them. (Laws of 1853, chap. 463, § 6; Laws of 1860, chap. 328; Laws of 1862, chap. 300, pp. 503, 504.)

By the act of 1853, the securities were required to be filed in the office of the comptroller of the State, but, by the succeeding acts, that was changed to the office of the superintendent of the insurance department; and the act creating that department conferred upon its superintendent the powers, and required him to perform the duties, of the comptroller relating to insurance companies. (Yol. [224]*2244, Gen. Stat. N. Y., 252, § 3.) As that provision changed section 17, of the act of 1853 (Laws of 1853, 894, 895), the superintendent had authority, and it became his duty also, to cause an examination to be made of the affairs of the insurance company, and, when it appeared that its assets were insufficient to reinsure its outstanding risks, to communicate that fact to the attorney-general, whose duty it then became to apply to this court for an order that the company show cause why its business should not be closed. Upon the hearing of such an order, if it appeared that the assets and funds of the company were not sufficient to make such reinsurance, then it was provided that the court should decree a dissolution of the company, and a distribution of its effects, including the securities deposited in the hands of the superintendent. This provided a complete system for the disposition of all the securities deposited for the benefit of the general policyholders; and it appears to contemplate such disposition by the superintendent under the decree of the court to be made on the hearing of the attorney-general’s application. For that purpose no receiver was rendered necessary. But the distribution was to be made according to a specific decree made for the purpose, and as the superintendent was the lawful depository of the securities, and he held them in trust for the policyholders, there would be very manifest propriety in requiring the consummation of that trust through his instrumentality. And that is what the legislature appears to have designed, for no provision was made for these securities passing out of his hands into those of any other person to make the distribution which was to be directed by the decree, or for the intervention of any other person in its execution. The decree, when made in conformity to this provision of the statute, would act directly upon the securities held by him, and in his hands, and direct their proper distribution. And as he was their legal custodian, not for his own benefit, but for that of the policyholders, his trust could not be completely executed until they were secured the benefit of them. He is the proper functionary through whom the distribution should ordinarily be made, a public officer selected for that purpose, and only needing the decree which the court has been authorized to make, to enable him to exercise the power. That would secure the harmonious consummation of the system devised by the statute, and it is [225]*225evident that the legislature designed it through the instrumentality of this officer.

Without changing those legislative provisions as to securities filed under them, it was further provided, in 1867, that any life insurance company, authorized to make insurances on lives within this State, might deposit in the insurance department other and additional securities, of the description of those mentioned in the preceding laws, in any amount not less than $25,000, which were to be for the special security and protection of registered policies and annuity bonds; and they were to be held and applied solely to that object. (Laws of 1867, chap. 708; Laws of 1869, chap. 902.) This authority was given to all companies authorized to make life insurance in this State, including those created by other States and by foreign countries, whose affairs could not be wholly closed by a receiver in this State, as well as those organized under its own laws. The provisions made by those laws chiefly relate to the security of holders of registered policies, and annuitants, as all the sections preceding section 7 of the act of 1869 very plainly show. And they require the securities deposited under them to be held and appropriated for the use of those persons, and no others, as long as any of their demands may remain unsatisfied.

JBut in the examination which the law has provided shall be made into the affairs of the companies, all assets and securities are required to be included, for the obvious reason that in no other way could the real condition be ascertained or discovered. On such examination into the affairs of any company which has deposited securities for the benefit of registered policyholders and annuitants, if they appear to be in such a condition as to render the issuing of additional policies and annuity bonds by it injurious to the public interests, the superintendent is required to report that fact to the attorney-general, whose duty it then becomes to apply to this court for an order that the company show cause why its business should not be closed. And if, on the hearing to be had, it shall appear that its assets and funds are not sufficient to justify the further continuance of its business, then the court shall restrain and enjoin it from doing so, and appoint a receiver of all its assets and credits, who shall take possession of all such assets and credits, except the securities deposited in the insurance department under [226]*226the provisions of this act, and the act hereby amended, which said securities shall remain in said department, to be disposed of as hereinafter provided.” (Laws of 1869, 2276, § 7.)

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-stout-v-chapman-nysupct-1875.