Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1879-04-19
The Decision of Justice NacArtln M
in the Mutual Fire Insurance Case.

uOWL, dllu uedUIl 3 OOLc already DGSlnS lutle
bubbles on the lips.
The Decision of Justice Macarthur
in the Mutual Fire Insurance Case.
SUPREME COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SITTING
IN Observation-Disclosures, JUSTICE.
In the case Of Richards ct al. VS.. The Mutual
Fire Insurance Company ct al, which has been
before the court for some days, Mr.. Justice Mac
Arthur, on Saturday last, gave his decision
granting the prayer for Injunction. AS the
matter is of considerable loo al interest we give
the decision OF the Judge in Tn.l, as follows:
There Is in regard to the stated meetings of a
corporation certain kind Of knowledge which
Is not to be disregarded, and every member of
this institution, being entitled to the cOnstitu-
lion and by. laws will be presumed to know the
time of meeting. In addition to that, we find
that in this case notice was given absolutely
by the proper officers to give the notice. That,
however, was given for period shorter than
objection appears to have been made at the
meeting to the shortness of the notice. No ex-
PLANTATION Is given In the answer By the old
board why the notice required by the charter
was not given unless it be that the habit at pre-
v1ous elections was to disregard this provision
or the charter and to hold an election upon such
notice as might be given, whether regular or
irregular.
The annual meeting was convened and the
ofncerS or the corporation assembled there for
the purpose adjourned the meeting and at a
Now, II no question were concerned here but
that OF an individual interest In these officers,
they would be clearly estopped from setting up
their own neglect or their own wrong for the
purpose OF defeating this election. 1 therefore
say that the argument derives some little sup.
port from consideration OF this kind which Is
statute being simply directory. 1t appears, BY
the construction which these same oficers have
placed upon this statute in past years, to have
been directory. because they have held the
meetings ana been elected at the annual cleo
lions under similar notices. and performed all
re toe functions n appertaning to these positions
think upon the whole very faithfully and 10 the
interest of the institution.
On the other hand, the statute Is quite clear
In 1eluiring that this notice should be given
And perhaps the ckhOlders ought not to be
concluded from setting their views up as
against this election On the ground that they
or of this board, and that they had an Interest
to have the fundamental law OF the corporation
observed, and If disregarded to have the con-
sequent action treated as nullity, and that
they are to be the judges OF whether it. was in.
furious to their interests or not Perhaps there
Is something In this.
st'on is net without its difficulties on the one
Side or on the other. SO much so that a n quite
sure II should decide 1t positively either way
u Wouid give 81 Gu dissatisfaction to the party
10 whom 1t was unfavOrable as to lead to fur
Their lltig alton.
Then again. in regard to the jurisdiction OF
this court. dc not wish to give the impres SION
thus early that do not intend to dispose of
THIS question although am waiting final de-
c1s1on to dispose OF these questions all together.
BUT IN regard to the jurisdiction OF the Court
nave no doubt at all that the compliments a:e
entitled tn the relief that they ask for so far as
the members OF the board are charged with
misconduct and sought to be made amenaole
for their acts. Their relation OF trustees to the
general body constituting this corporation is
undoubfed. and the jurisdiction OF this Court to
gram tDls species OF relief thi0k must be un-
Ques tiOnable
Notwithstanding the forcible remarks OF
couTsei, however, that these plaintiffs have no
remedy unless IL be the one which they seek to
enforce now for the purpose OF procuring the
administration OF the affairs Of this CORPORATION
by the board which they claim to have been
elected, am still Inclined to the opinion that
that board which claims to have been elected
On tie oath of November last, has complete
and adequate remedy at law for the purpose OF
Inducing them into that Office by legal process
an. ana That IS so fun remedy-mOre satisfactory
reason why the board itself should not have
Iesorsed 10 t! at mode OF redress It is said that
they nave no 'ntrol OF that remedy; that 1t is
pubic preceding, and that it can only be
aVa1led or as prerogative process and can
ony be commanded by the government That
was undoubtedly true under the common law
or England; but do not understand that that
principle is enforced amy where in this country
TO the extent that it was recognized in the
r ma,Es hencn: and that any person who Is
this de e;1t.ea 20 prerogatlve writ OF
ara other writs like them may secure
1oie remedy without any application for per-
mission 10 90 So It might be II the mama of
the government were u ed thai # Moi a,ta.
pose an objection to continuing the Ii,e OF its
name put cannot recall, within my eSpari-
e4ce, a single case, unless in a guit.Bs a:Gion
where ire judgment Is to be defeated from the
action of the party who brings the suit. where
the government has been applied to In the frs.
instance IOr It's permission to use its n lina in
procuring the issuance Of the writ. So that
think, so far as the new board is concerned their
remedy was complete.
Now, In regard to the right OF these COMPLAIN
ants to ask for this same relief on their b,half
These compliments. of course have a certain
right to have the affairs of This corporation at
terced to by the officers who have been duly
elected for that purpose, and there should
be some mode In which they can procure
this relief, If they are entitled to it at
applied for On behalf of a few stockholder,
where the general constituencF is so numerous
as IL Is mere, the court ought b. interfere with
That the relief asked would really 1ntl,ct more
injury upon the corporation than it would con.
FER d benefit upon the complainants, to deny it
edy It is entre a ,ha asks for this rem
court 10 giant t. II the application Is m ade on
tie law Side OF the court by the persons enIit,ei
r 10 Inc ON there Is no discretion. aud the
Ieheu! Is administered according to the facts
cam o. therefore, dispose Of this case wit.
ooa looking az the result OF an interference OF
t ecu s OF equity; and must acknowledge that
- - c0oO utpCtt W ftlp 50 Gle r
mat ought not to disregard them In dlsp sin
OF THIS Case. And While enjoin these defend.
ants from holding another election | am ratnt.r
inclined TO restrain the election on MondaV
either until the title OF the new )ari an ms.
trled or until new election can be held nod.
The direction OF the court ITSELF
can conceive, II the court does not Interfere
TO thaI extent, as counsel have remarked that
IL would introduce very great confusion int
tne aualtS OF this Institution. l can a,s) en-
celve That IT, generally, the affairs OF this G, an
pany were placed in the hands OF a receiver IT.
would be about the lastof Its usefulness While
therefore, feel disposed to take one OF two
courses, either to order an election or to give
Cee oOard leave 10 apply on the law side of This
court, 90 not think that 1t Is necessary to ar
point a receiver for any purp )se. The charter
provides that the old board shall rem ain until
Its successors are chosen. The law itself nlaces
certain confidence in the persons who have
acted as the board OF management of this con.
Germ; and although there are very serious
charges In the bill here against the manner in
which they have conducted this concern.
yet It is very evident upon the whole
record they have conducted it In such a wav
notwithstanding these averments, as to secure
very great degree of success in its business
and tt at to- day, II there Is any reliance to be
placed upon their answer, 1t Is probably one of
tie NEST prosperous and one OF the most cred