The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-05-11
MUTUAL LIES AFFAIRS
ANOTHER CHAPTER IN INDIANA IN
sURANCE LITIGATION.
SensationaI Cross-Compiaint Filed
Heavy Railway Damage suit-Day
in the County Courts.

Yesterday morning was the time set by
Judge Harvey, of the Superior Court, to
hear argument on the demurrer of Sullivan
M. Hilligoss to the complaint of the Off
GERS Of the Mutual Life Insurance Company
Of Indiana, on which a receiver was last.
week appointed. Attorneys Merrill Moores
and William r. Crawford were prepared to
represent Mr.. Hilligoss, who appears as a
policy holder. But first Charles W. Smith,
attorney for the officers of the
company, filed a cross complaint
in which he alleged that Hilligoss
had not been acting in good faith as a poll
cy holder; that he had conspired with
others to either get control of the company
or destroy it's business, and that for this
purpose he had a policy issued to himself
April 2 last. The cross complaint further
averred that on April II, as the office was
about to close, Hilligoss, claiming he had
the right to make such a request, demanded
the privilege of investigating the books of
the company and explained that there
were others behind him" Another allega-
ton charged that Attorney Green and
President Myers, Of the company, had a
conversation with Hilligoss and w. r.
Crawford and the latter used this Ian
guage: I'VE want you to step down and
out and let me name the officers of the
company. If you don't, We'll wreck it."
Again it was alleged that Crawford threat
ened injurious publication and that Hill
goss wrote afterward .|that serious litiga-
ton threatened the company and that he
was willing TO meet the officers half way
Also, that Hilligoss acknowledged to Green
and Myers that he had not furnished the
money with which to procure a policy IN
the company.
Judge Harvey, after hearing the cross
complaint, announced to the attorneys that
he desired to hear rgument as to. the
courts jurisdiction in creating the receiver
snip. This argument was then taken
up. Merrill Moores contended that
the complaint requesting the appoint
ment of a receiver was q most extraordi-
nary one. He held that the officers of the
company, after the doubts as to their posi-
ton had been determined by good lawyers,
should have called in the policy holders,
explained the case and had other officers
legally appointed. The legal existence of
the company could not be threatened and
only the questions as to the rights Of the
officers to the positions they hold could be
settled by litigation. The attorney insisted
that the application for a receiver had not
been legally made.
A. j. Beveridge said the court need not
wait until a corporation became insolvent
before appointing a receiver. The officers
had a right to ask for a receiver. They saw
the threatened condition of affairs and be-
lieved it best to a k steps toward preserV-
ing the assets before there was a chance to
dissipate them. Charles w. Smith cited au-
IiiOlA liSS ouppOl lliS Lie iISAb VI TIC COliA-
pany to ask for a receiver. The attorney
asked the court to instruct the receiver to
report whether there had been misappro-
priation of funds. Judge Harvey replied
that the receiver would report the amount
paid the officers and for what purpose.
Attorney w. r. Crawford, who repre-
sents several policy holders in the Mutual
Life Insurance Company litigation, made
the bold statement last night that there
might be q criminal prosecution before the
litigation is ended.
with Mr.. Moores ]. called on Mr.. Eitel.
of the Union Trust Company, to-day" said
Attorney Crawford, and asked whether it
is true as alleged that the officers of the
Mutual Life Insurance Company of Indiana
have only drawn salaries as such officials.
Mr.. Eitel replied that it is not true and
informed us that the books show where
they have been drawing dividends. He said,
however, that no dividends have been
drawn lately. Now if the chief officer of
this insurance company has sworn that no
dividends were drawn by him and Mr..
Eitels statement to1us3 proves correct We
propose to put the FACTS before the grand
i1rNo