The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-01-03
JUDGE HOWE Il
Brief in the Appealed Iron Hall
Case Filed Yesterday.
Says 1t Is Impossible to Equally Dis
tribute the Funds Under the De-
crew. z. Gallup's Will.

Upon call yesterday morning ex-Judge
Howe, attorney for the defendants in the
Iron Hall case, filed his brief upon appeal
TO the general term, from the final judg-
nent of the court in special term, making
permanent the appointment of the receiver
for the order. The brief was a lengthy one.
covering seventy-five typewriter pages,
and reviewing the litigation In the case.
Then, after setting forth in detail the plan
OF the order and the character Of its insur-
anCe, the brief takes up the consideration
OF the grounds upon which the appointment
Of the receiver was made.
1t declares that 1.-The receiverships in other
States were made necessary by the appoint
ment of the receiver here: o. To prevent
eating up the funds in other States by a
multitude of individual suits; CD to preserve
the funds there for the primary benefit OF
the resident members and creditors. But
the evidence shows that in but two States
has hnal distribution been made, and that
IN only two or three has a permanent re-
ceiver been appoirted. And it is fair to
presume that if the Indiana courts would
permit the order TO be reorganized, and
turns it's property and funds back to it.
the courts of other States would do the
same. Among the other grounds alleged for
the appointment of a receiver are the fail
ure of subordinate branches to elect officers
and hold meetings, rival factions, claims
that the order is now inSolvent. . If we
are correct IN our argument SO lar, lnen
there are no grounds for the appointment
of a permanent receiver, and the only
ground for the continuance of a temporary
receiver is the existence OF the Two rival
organizations. AS shown by the agreed
statement of facts and the special finding,
there We're two rival bodies, each claiming
TO be the lawful Supreme Sitting. What is
the first duty of the court in such a case?
Plainly to determine which of the two is
the lawful one, for the court cannot pre-
sumo that either is the lawful one or that
both are illegal. If 1t is aScertained that
either is the lawful organization, then the
property and management of the order
should be turned over to it. If ii is ascer-
tanned that neither organization is awful,
then 1t is the duty of the court to allow the
members an opportunity of e~ffecting a law
ful organization and, If necessary, to order
a new election"
The brief then cites authorities to show
that the court has the power to take the
action which the appellants ask it to take.
Continuing, the appellant says: I'VE have
insisted from the beginning, and shall con-
Is open TO our appeal, that the law which
held the order bound hand and foot for over
a year should give the members a chance
TO reorganiZe and go on If they wish to do
So,.or, If not, but wish TO quit and distribute
their funds, that they should have the right
TO do so in their own ~way-that almost any
plan that they might devise would net them
more than they will get after years of lit-
cation, the sacrifice of their property and
the m of the expenses of forty or
more receivers and their attorneys. = .
We especially object to the scheme of dis
tributiOn mapped out in the final decree. 1t
is wholly illusory. The decree is SO framed
that no member can participate In the dis
tribution unless his branch or the receiver
of it has accounted to Mr.. Failey. But the
members of other States cannot control
either the receivers there or the courts
which appointed them, and whose orders,
and not those of the Marion Superior Court,
such receivers must obey. Only a few out
side of Indiana have accounted SO far, and
there is no evidence that they are likely to
do so. Endless litigation will be the inev-
liable result of this scheme