The New York herald., 1877-01-10
CONTINENTAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.

THE ORDER OF THE COURT BELOW GRANTING A
REFERENCE CONFIRMED IN GENERAL TERM
HOW THE POLICY HOLDERS MAY GIT RID OF
MR.. ANDERSON = RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE
[BY TELEGRAPH TO THE HERALD
ALBANY, Jan. Q, 1877.
The receiver OF the Continental Lite Com
pany John J. Anderson, who was placed where he Is
through the action Of John o. Hoyt stockholdo who
applied and successful IN his application to have
the company declared insovent, appears to be
determined to fight the stockholders to
the bitter end, ana Anderson the company and
the head and front OF rotten fraudulent and insol-
vent institution. There Is a clear field of litigation
ahead calculated extend a considerable OF
time. II IS unfortunate that tho superintendent OF
Insurance did not awake time to the necessity OF
investigating this company and winding up It's affairs.
The delay he made until action was alrcaar taken by
stockhoider and receiver appointed throws serious
legal obstacle the way of reaching the by
the proper method Of investigation.
CASE.
As the facts related to-day IN court II appears
that Mr. John o. Hoyt a stockholder. commenced an
action in the Supreme Court against the company
October 1876 alleging its insolvency and asking for
judgment, dissolvrng the company and appointing a
receiver. An order TO show cause why receiver
should be appointed pendene lite was obtained at
the same time The hearing this order was from
time adjourned, until October 20, 1876 when
the motion tor receiver was granted the counsel Tor
the pany not opposing IT, but in TACT conscnng 10
the appointment ON October 20 Jonn J. Anderson
duiy appointed receiver ot tho company and on
that day he gave the bond required by the Court and
entered into the discharge OF the duties Of his trust.
On November the Attorney General applied 10 the
Supreme Court and obtained an order 10 SHOW cause,
relurnable November D, why receiver should not be
and Ohm J. Anderson superseded Before the
return day OF that order aud on November 4, final
Judgment was entered the SUIT OF Hoyt dissolyng
the company and confirming the appointment OF
Anderson, as receiver On November rs this matter
came oil TO be heard and the judgment Of The Court
was shown IN opposition to The application. An order
OF reference made TO take evidence as to the acts
and from OF reference Hoyt appealed to
General Term and the was argued and decided to-
day by having the order OF reference affirmed.
TnE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW CONFIRMED.
The Court, however,, did not decide any OF the other
points raised by the defence, preierring 10 let tho
reference on and when all the testimony Is In then
take the entire matter under advisement ana render
It's decision IL did not Tor instance, touch the point
argued by Mr.. Miller, Tor the Defence that as tho
superintendent OF Insurance did not apply 10 the
had already brought an action against
the company and a receiver had been appointed, no
reference could go beyond simple CATION The
question to whether the company was nsolvcnt or
not. It could not inquire into the management o the
receiver unless an application was made IN the same
action by which the receiver was appointed.
EFFEcT THE DECISION
Under the order maze by the Court to-day, Mr..
DeaN VINO WAS formerly appointed releTec
strained from acting, Will proceed TO Now York after
eight days. notice IRON tho Attorney General aud
begin the taking Of testimony. When that Is all il
and the supreme Court renders its decision, there Is
stil chance left for the defence, should II get the
OF It, appeal to the Court OF Appeals. The fact of
and referee being appointed Tor one insol
institution Is believed 10 be unprecedented. IL the
referee attempts 10 extend his investigation beyond
the limits OF inquiring INTO the one pain question OF
Insolvency-a TACT that is admitted all sidesan
der Of the Court will be applied Tor to RESTRAIN
him. What the stockholders and the pubic
want investigation INTO the methods
by which the policy holders robbed, but this. IL
would appear, they not to have and ali through
technically. This technicality Is the neglect OF the
superintendent o Insurance 10 take action prior 10
siockholder When the latter steps in the iormer Is
supposed TO be dcbarrcd from exercising his privilege
Neither H0yt nor Anderson were present nor Andcr-
sons principal counsel, Judge Fullerton
COURT AND COUNSEL.
The presiding Judge William J.. Learned, with
whom associated Douglas Boardman and Augustus
Bockcs John l.. Hill appeared Tor the receiver,
George W. Miller Tor Hoyt, William Barnes for the
policy holders and Henry Smith for the Attorney Gen.
eral. II the company, or rather Anderson, the re-
ceiver. who is now the company, had any notion
such Is spoken about of compromising
with the representative Of the policy holders II would
be difficult OF accomplishment under the aspect the
case has assumed. With the Attorney General taking
the most prominent part. the fact s anu the stock
holders should know 1t, that application tor the
Judge Special General Term, setting forth the
for IT on grounds, as might be- OF cousion with
the management with others to cover up fraudulent
proceedings, would be enough to insure the dspace-
ment OF Mr. Anderson and the substitution OF one in
whom the policy holders would have more confidence.