The Express.
London, England, 1863-05-07 00:00:00

RE TEL lINGLIBH AND MINN CHOICE AND

ASSURANCE BOCUITY.-.WDONIENT.

The Vice-61ancelior,IncierirenThogjtiiiiiii;t in this case,
said the question before him wee a question as to bow the
assets of this company applicable to the payment of cre-
ditors were to be divided amongst three elegem of creditors,
or rather perhaps whether seine of three duels of creditors
were entitled to come in at all as alairoante upon those
assets. The creditors were these—let, the general creditors
of the company, persons who in their dealings with it were
unaffected with any notice of limitation of liability ; 2ndly,
there were the ,holders of Don-participatier Foliar ; and
3rdly, the holders of participatiog peliciesgranted by theoom-
patty. As to the lint of these dimes no doubt existed, they
were clearlyentitled topayment. The wood class, the policy
holders without participation,stood them. The policies granted
to them, mad under which they claimed, were policies in the
nasal form, and contained a proviso that the holder should
not be entitled to participate in profits, and that the capital
stock and funds of the society applicable to the payment of
policy moons should alone he liable to the payment of their
claims, pursuant to the terms of the deed of settlement of
the company. Referring to the deed of settlement there
appeared upon it nothing preferring the claim of one credi-
tor to the claim of another. The policy-holden were as
much creditors*: the company as persons who had furnished
them with goods or other monies worth, and in the absence
of anything to the contrary they mast equally with, the
first mentioned class of czediton be held Gentled to pay-
ment out of the smote of the company. Then came the
question es to the 3rd class of policy-holders, those holding
policies entitling them to participate in the profits of
the company. As to these it had been argued
that their participation in the profits made them
partners in the company, that as partners they were liable
to the payment of thecompany's debnias against creditors,
and could not, therefore, be allowed to take from creditors
1 any part of the meets. lint to determine this oneetion it
was again necemsry to have regard to the form of the policy
granted. The form `of policy in this case was, as in the
other, the common form of that document, but it contained
an engagement on the pert of the insurers to pay, together
with the sum covered by the policy, "such further sem or
sums of money, if any, as shall be appropriated by way of
bourn to the sum hereby secured," in accordance with the
terms of the deed of settlement. It was something to be
remarked, though of course it wee not conclusive on the
subject - for the deed of settlemset must determine that—
that Do mention of profits by that name was contained in a
policy. Turning, however, to the deed of settlemeet, it was
there provided by the 178th see. bow this bonus SW to be
arrived at. That section directed that at certain periods
the directors should make a valuation of the company's lia-
bilities, and upon the basis of that valuation a true and as
curate socotuat of the company's affairs should be made out ;
that if any surplus should be found such surplus should be
divided into tenths ; that six teethe should again be divided ,
between the participating policy holders, " sock division to
be made by the actuary or consulting actuary as to him I
shall seem fair," and that the remaining four tenths should
go amongst the protiristary awerding to their shares." Non ,r
apron this the court was asked to declare these policy holden
penmen, bet ft seemed to his, be must confess, that the
essentials of penmanship were inintleg. The idea had, no
doubt, been received the Onion that participation in
profits constitated and they were all inquainted
with the subtle to which this ridge
of things had , given rise, dinnertime& which •
ales Lord Eldon had declared his inability fully
to comprehend. The recast Nee, however, of "Cox and
Hinkley," before the House of Lords, bad placed this
matter upon a becarkeind more intelligible footing, and • it
was there clearly kid down by judges and noble lords or
peat ezpericame that the principle of agency larat thin
wet of •tlia qmotaen of partner or spa partner. Applyiog
We test to the preemie arm no one could doubt bet that is
so swum were these policy holders agents for the share-
' holden. Thsff cold we interfere in ern way io the dine-
tics of the affairs of the company ; they could file no bill