The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1880-12-24
Receiver Appointed.

Il htss A. bs botbWAkb. W RlCHhOhD. AffOINT-
ED RECEIVER OF THE PIEDMONT AND AR
LINGT0N LTPE-ISsURASCE C0MPANY-OPiN-
ION or JUDGE BUGHEs.
| Yesterday morning, in the United States
Circuit Court, Judge Hughes delivered his
opinion In the case OF X. b. Buck and 9th
ers Us. The Piedmont and Arlington Life
Insurance Company In the matter Of ap-
pointing receiver. The Court, after stat
ing the company's insolvency, and review
Ing all the facts In the cause, said:
"Having thus itself made a case for re.
ceiver and actually anticipates court In ap-
pointing one. this court Is relieved from the
painful inquiries and delicate responsibility
usually deyolyed upon courts in passing
upon applications for receivers; and, there
fore, / am confronted with but single
question, which is whether or not this court
will allow the defendant company TO appoint
its receiver for il?
"Tbis is an insoIvent life-insurance COM
pany-a company which has approached
thousands OF men and women in the land
and said, IL out OF your annual earnings
and savings YOU will pay me annual pre-
miums OF money during your natural lives
| will al your death pay TO your widows
and children certain thousands OF dollars
| tOl intll FhPBViis h0ffh| iONOA'Nh NhNTN
premiums for twelve or fifteen years down
10 few weeks past. 1t now reveals to
the world that it cannot comply with the
solemn obligations which 1t had under
taken. / think that the mere TACT OF the
failure Of life-insurance company
is prima tdcie proof that its operations
have been conducted in a fraudulent man.
ner; aud il the failure is not explained by
some great casualty, such as a widespread
pestilence. or sudden financial convulson.
or physical calamity, think that it is per Sc
proof of fraud. / will not pretend TO say
that it creates the presumption OF moral
turptude in the managers OF the company,
but it certainly does OF constructive fraud
that is to say, OF that financial imbecilty, or
reckessness. or extravagance, or that gross
negligence which is equivalent in IFS cOnse'
queuces to fraud. and which a court is
bound to regard as constructive fraud.
Would the court be justified in allowing
q trustee appointed by such company, in
the very deed in which it avowed its iDsOl'
yency, to remain in the custody OF its effects
and ID administer them? Could the court
expect to attract and retain the confidence
OF the public and OF its suitors ii it should
sanction such an act? | think not. Toe
Insolvency aud abnegation OF the company
left its effects in the legal and rigbtful Gus
tOdy OF no one, and the court must at once
provide for the emergency by appointing
receiver.
alt has not been the POLICY or practice o
this court IN appointing receivers FOR IN
solvent companies to appoint any one wb(
had been officially and respOnsibly connect
ed with the mismanagemc nj which brougb
his company's affairs to ruin; and for tha
reason | cannot appoint Mr.. Blakey as re
ceiver here, IN whose personal integrity
would otherwise have the utmost conf
dence, and whose high character | mos
cheerfulIy acknowledge"
The Judge then announced the appoint
ment Of Mr.. A. l.. Boulware. OF Richmond
who subsequently gave bond in The sum o
500 900 for the faithful performance OF tn
duties Of the position, Messrs. Isaac Daven
port, Jr., and Andrew Johnston becoming
his bondsmen.