The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-03-30
ORAL ARGUMENT is HEARD
Attorneys Go Over the Iron Hall Re-
ownership Before the Supreme Court
Judge Howe Talks for the Old Supreme Sit
ting and Messrs Harris and Hawkins
for the Complaining Members.

The oral argument yesterday before the
Supreme Court in the Iron Hall litigation
was begun by Mr.. Daniel w. Howe. of
counsel for the appellant. Judge Howard
was not present, being detained by illness
at home. 1t as the unanimous agreements
to proceed without full bench. Judge
Howe began by disclainins any intention
to speak disrespcctfuily of Judge Taylor.
who made the order for areceiver, but hesaid
he wanted to deny most positively that he
or any other judge has absolute power to
appoint receivers. He then proceeded to
speak of the plan and purposes of the Iron
Hall, which. he said. is SIMILAR to the
Royal Arcanum. He spoke for q few min
utes very closely in the line of the brief
filed q few weeks ago. which was
published In the Journal at the
time. Those who brought the suit
he said. did not swear to the complaint.
The order, he said. was not shown To be In
solvent, but, on the other hand. 1t was
solvent. He detailed the proceedings Of
the court in connection with the trial last
summer. and repeated that the court. with
out giving time for argument, entered
decree and appointed receiver.
POINTS OF JUDGE HOwE'S ADDRESS.
Judge Howe then took mp q proposition
advanced by the appellees. that upon this
appeal the court cannot consider the suf-
ficlency of the eomplaint He said that
this is contrary to the rules of the court.
If il were not, the practice would be much
lOoser than Ii is now. And II now,
he said. we 90 u step further and refuse to
notice the character OF the complaint. but
must only depend upon long bill of ex-
ceptions. the practice would be still
fur Their demOralized. But that. be SAID. is
not the law. The court must, In any case,
examine the complaint TO learn whether
1t Is one of the statutory cases permitting
the appointments Of receiver. When .
complaint, as in this case asks for re-
ceiver and nothing else. the court mnst
look at the complaint. The court must
plant.
The theory of the appellee that the Iron
Hall is not q charitable organization. and
yet 10 not o corporation. received q some
what extended discussion. 1t would lead.
said Judge Howe. to two diametrically op-
posed conclusions, or to confusion. Mr..
Harris, he said, would make out that the
order had Just enough insurance not 10 be
q corporation. and was just enough of
corporation not TO have receiver. But
while true this is not q charitable associa-
ton, it had enough of this feature to put il
under the voluntary association act. But
Mr.. Harriss argument that the order was
not corporation Is contrary to the aver.
ment in the complaint. which refers to the
order as u corporation duly organized under
the law of the State. But. continued
Judge Howe. If nothing more than club,
the same rules apply.
Judge Howe then discussed the question
of sufficiency of the complaint, affirming
that the complaint fails to show cause for
| action tor any kind of relief The tendency
| OF the courts. he said. 10 to reach out over
| pu bic corporations to com pei them butter
| to serve the public, but In private CORPORA
| lions, the tendency Is the other way. In
| orders like this. the tendency is to compel
mem bers to seek relief within the order
| stated are wholly insufficient to Justify the
| appointment of u receiver. He then went
| into Oh analysis of cases cited. referring
! first to q MASSACHUSETTS, case. which related
| to q certain oDe-year order, swln0le he
| said upon its face.
Coming to the law bearing on this case.
Judge Howe declared there was no author
ity In law for the appointment of re.
celver. The discretionary power In all
courts, he said. Is discretionary In con-
| formIty to rules and judicial presidents.
| The only clause. he said. on which applica-
tiOns for the appointments OF o receiver can
| be based ls that relating to insoiven-
cy, but the complaint wholly falls
to show that the CORPORATION IS in
| solvent. The specific allegations In con-
nectiOn with laws and constitutions OF the
order. show that it is solvent. The adj
| vocate then quoted the rule relating to
| assessments and maintained that it had
| the power to make unlimited assessments.
As to the liabilities of the order. be said it
| was not alleged that the order owed q
do liar which was not paid. The complaint
says that it will be indebted for
| benefits that Will be due.
but 1t has been decided again
| and again. that what q man will III the
| future owe cannot justify legal action.
| Judge Howe, however, held that the rule
| itself Is fallaclOus. The significant thing
however. is not get.rich-qnIck order. and
| does not promise to give 81. OOl for $3.50. he
| read the printed rule, relating TO the re-
| turn for the assessments, saying that there
! is nothing abstruse about IL. 1t is
just like the Masonic or Odd Fellows.
There Is no liability TO pay more than Is
| paid IN. This. he held. showed that the or
der was solvent. But conceding. he said.
that the order was insolvent. there is still
| an insuffic ency in the complaint The
| plaintiffs must show themselves to possess
| an interest, but these plaintiffs do not shO W
| that any thing was or is due them. Their
claim was mere expectancy based on
double CONFERENCE.-The is, payment OF
| dues and sufficient amount to pay them at
| the end Of seven years Judge Howe then
went into citations from California. Utah
and Ohio reports. Against these. he said.
the appellees have cited only one case. IN
which the defendant consented to the ap-
pOintment of u receiver. he adverted TO the
large amount of property and momentous
legal points involved. The real parties te
the suit, he pointed out, are the CO. 600 mem
Der, who want the opportunity to reorgan.
ize and to elect o new set of officers. Hs
wanted. he said, an order clearly detuiu
their rights. 80 that they might discard the
officers who caused the trouble. and reor
ganIzes
ARGUMENT OF MIR. HARRIS.
Mr. Harris followed for the appellees
He said the other side was careful not Il
bring in the evidence where tho court coult
see it. and this. he said. wa,
argument against them. He pro
ceeded ito refer to three cases. in whicf
1t was held that the snfficlency of the com
plant might ID OF be shown at all. The In
diana laws, he said, permit q receiver TO he
appointed when cODcern 10 lnsOlvent oil
III danger of Insolvency. The court In this
| case had the discretion necessary TO afford
those asking relief ample Justice. Mr.. Har.
| ris attacked the claim that the order is q
charitable one. 1t sells insurance, b,
said, Quid pro quo. against sickness
| accident and death. with an endowment
feature. There IS no provision for charity
in Its rules. Speaking of the complain
statements were made on their inf0rma
ton and belief. but that was not all. Tn,
plaintiffs charged the facts to be as de
clared. He said this follows the exac
| formula of the law. Nobody but the off
| GERS of the order could positively swear Il
the condition of the order He then re
4 viewed the complaint. recalling tina
the appellants had taken 100000 o