The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-06-23
THEY OWN THE COMPANY
PRACTICALLY THE CLAIM SET UP BY
THE MUTUAL LIFE OFFICIALS.
Say Policy Holders Have No Voice in
Affairs Unless Expressly Stipulated
in Their Policies.

In an answer filed in the Superior Court
yesterday by w R. Myers, Henry Malpas,
John B. Green, Henry F. Barnes and Den
ton S. Billingsly officers of the Mutual Life
Insurance Company the story of the or
ganization Of the company and the cause
of its present plight is set out in detail.
The answer of the officers is made to the
cross-complaints of policy holders and con-
tains sensational charges
1t is averred at the start that the State
Legislature never took steps to dissolve the
corporation after its incorporation in 1882.
On the contrary, the Legislature of 1898
eracted a law making valid the corpora
ton, which act was approved and signed
by the Governor, and the Legislature of
1895 changed the name of the organization
to the Mutual Life Insurance Company of
Indiana. The answer denies the right of
policy holders to participate in the profits
and earnings of the company, except SO
far as may be stipulated in their several
policies, and AYERS that it was not under
stood that policy holders had a right to
vote for the election of directors or have
a voice in the management of the company
except as stipulated in the contract of a
policy holder with the company.
1t is avArred that Myers, Malpas and
Green have rendered valuable services to
the organization; that these officers and
their predecessors have advanced money
with which to pay the expenses of the COM
pany. They admit that they have been re-
imbursed. They say and declare they have
only received a fair compensation for their
services, although admitting that the books
show certain portions OF their funds having
gone to them as payments on their hold
ings." But it is insisted the officers in
tended that such payments were only to
represent a ldlr compensation TOT tnelr
services. The answer asserts that by the
spring of 1887 the officers, by careful man
agement, had built up large and pros
porous business. There were $780, 900 of
valuable assets; $50 600 in cash and call
loans, and $25,O00 in mortgage securities.
The answer goes on to allege that the
first of the year 1897 one Frank b. DaVen-
pert was employed as the general manager
of the Mutual Life at a salary of $2,400 a
year. His contract with the company, 1t
is claimed, was about to expire. 1t is
charged that Davenport went into a con-
spiracy with others to either have the
company transfer to them its control and
emulation of cash, or extort money from
the corporation on a promise to forbear.
The answer devotes considerable space to
Sullivan NJ Hilligoss, one of the cross
complainants 1t is claimed there was q
plot for Hilligoss to get into the company
and under the guise of being policy hold
er was to demand the books and harasS
the company by threats of litigation and
injurious publication 1t is asserted that
pursuant to this conspiracy Hilligoss made
application and was given a policy for $l,OOO
April 3, 1897 A few days later, as aVerred,
Hilligoss visited the office of the company
at the close of the days business and de-
nanded the books He was refused, the
answer says, because he had called at an
improper hour. Hilligoss. it is averred
made the declaration that "others We're
behind him" 1t is claimed that he after
ward requested Henry Malpas to accom-
pany him to the rooms of a certain club
in this city, where they might have an in
terview with a person whose identity
Hilligoss refused to reveal. Malpas re
fused to CO. The charge is made that Hill
goss Davenport and others employed w.
r. Crawford, 81 Chicago lawyer, who de-
manded that the officers or the Mutual
men he might name. He threatened TO
wreck the company in the event OF re-
fusal
Hiiiigoss is charged with having threat
ened at divers times injurious publication
of the companys affairs, and Is charged
with having written letters to the ofncers
saving their affairs were in serious con-
dition. 1t is averred Hilligoss announced
himself ready to meet them halfway
and save further trouble. The officers
show the court they were informed by
counsel that there was some doubt about
the validity of the original incorporation
OF the company, and this fact, coupled with
the report that Hilligoss had endeavored
against them, was the cause of their appli-
cation for a receiver. They deny the appli-
cation was made under cover or dark
ness An emergency existed, they say,
and they lost no time In going oet o. tne
court but they aver every act was IN good
faith They claim the lainants
have no right to ask that meeting be
called and new officers elected They are
emphatic in the assertion that the company
cannot successfully continue business.