The advocate and Topeka tribune., 1893-07-19
The Norwood Insurance Case
OFEICB OF SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE,
TOPEKA, KAs.

S"@SS ~A WOOSAa
plaintiffs, vs.. The Guardian Insurance
Company, American Fire Insurance Com
pRnY, Norwich Union Insurance CON-
psny, Niagara Fire Insurance Company,
Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Phoe-
nix Assurance Company, State Insurance
Company, Fireman's Fund Insurance
Company, Niagara Fire Insurance Com
pany Second policy, Boylston Insurance
Company, Western Assurance Company,
defendants.
This case was filed before ex-Superin-
tendent Mcbride, but was not heard by
him, and therefore was set for hearing
by the present superintendent Of insur-
ance for May 16, 1893, at which time the
plaintiffs appeared by counsel, B. F.
Simpson, W. Fl. Vernon and J. w. Rush;
the defendants represented by Judge M.
A. Fike and D. r. Hite, at which time it
appeared that neither plaintiffs nor de-
PENDANTS were ready for trial, and there
fore by consent the case was continued
to July 10, 1893, at II o'clock a. M, when
the cause was taken up and heard. The
plaintiffs ask in their petition that the
authority granted the defendants to do
business in this state be Cancelled, or that
they be required to remand their case
back to the state courts or to settle the
loss Of the plaintiffs on q reasonable and
equitable basis, alleging for cause that
the plaintiffs had insured their stock Of
goods IN the aforesaid companies to the
amount of $38, 300; that on the 7th day
Of January, 1892, they had lost their en-
tire stock Of goods by fire; that having
made proof of loss and demand Of pay
ment and defendants not complying
thereto, suit was brought in the district
court of Pswnee county, Kansas; that
answer day came on July 30, 1892, when
defendants, by their attorneys, fled their
petition to remove said causes to the
United States circuit court, as provided
by United States statute In case Of nom
Residents, and in the October term said
dibOoBt court granted said petition, and
.Rahr cases have been in the United States
court from that day until the present
tune; that said removal was taken for
vexatious delay and worriment Of said
plaintiffs with the end in view of de-
frauding said plaintiffs out of their just
rights. Plaintiffs further allege that
there is no just defense to said claim.
Defendants, by their attorneys, denV
oil of said allegations, and show by aff-
davits that said removals were not taken
for vexstious delay or worrlment, but in
good faith, believing that final deter
mination can be had in the United
States court much sooner thsn in the
state courts, and that they could not
have q fair and impartial trial OF said
causes in said district court Of Pawnee
county, Kansas; that they have always
been ready for trial at each term OF said
United States court; that they believe
they have meritorious defense.
The burden Of proof was on the defend
ants, to show causes why their licenses
should not be revoked, and accordingly
each Of the defendants fled Rffidavits
letters and documents showing theiI
good faith in the premises. The PLAIN
tiff, o. F. Norwood, verified his petition
Of facts and furnished documentary evi
dence in support Of his claim.