The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1897-09-12
BIG GUNS AT WORK
INSURANCE CASE ARGUED BEFORE
JUDGE WILLIAMS YESTERDAY.

Cause of All the Trouble Is an Application
of the Mutual Life Insurance Company
of New York to Restrain McNali ane
Boyle From Prosecuting Agents of thu
Company For Doing business In The
State without a License-Judge Horton
of Topeka Leads the Case For tLs
Company.
Yesterday the Dig guns had the field
In the United States circuit court. Judge
Williams put in the whole day hearing
the arguments OF the attorneys in the
New York Mutual Life Insurance in
junction case.
AS G. c. Clemens said in his closing
argument yesterday, there has been a
good deal said about this case and but
very little relating TO it. A simple state
mint of me case is this:
On the first OF March the license Of the
Mutual Life Insurance company Of New
York to do business in Kansas expired.
The company sent 10 Webb McNall,
state superintendent Of insurance. an ap-
plication for license for another year
and a chetk in full payment. McNall
enclosed the check with the following
letter to the president OF the company,
refusing 10 license:
State Of Kansas, Insurance Department
Topeka, March 3, 1897.
New York Mutual Life Insurance Co.,
New York.
Gentlemen-Your annual report for the
year ending December 81, 1896, has been
received, and in reply will say, as TO iseu
ing license for the ensuing year for your
company 10 do business in this state,
that on evidence satisfactory to this de-
partment, / am satisfied that your COM
pany has not dealt fairly with the plain
tiff, Mrs. Sally Z. Hillmon, in refusing
10 pay the death loss, and in the litiga-
ton Of the same. pertaining 10 her de-
ceased husband; hence, this department
refuses 20 issue to the New York Mu-
tual Life Insurance company license
to do business in this state for the en-
suing year. Very respectfully,
WEBB MNALL Superintendent
Some hot correspondence occurred be-
tween McNaii and the insurance COM
pany and was kept up for six weeks or
two months. The company renewed
their application and again forwarded
their check with the same result as at
first. After failing to secure a license
az all the company ordered their men
10 go TO work in Kansas and applied
for an injunction restraining McNall, as
state insurance superintendent, and
Boyle, as attorney general, from prose-
cutting the insurance men for doing bus
mess in the state without a license.
Judge Williams, acting for Judge Fost-
e. Of the circuit court a Topeka, grant
ed a temporary injunction. This made
McNall and Boyle hot and they flew into
Judge Williams face That's all they
did, however, for they didn't arrest a
single insurance man.
The question at issue is simply TO de-
eide whether the state superintendent
Of insurance has absolute discretionary
power in the matter OF granting license
and i fhe has not. has he the power TO
prosecute the agents of an insurance
company for carrying on the business in
mis- state without a license, such license
being illegally refused.
The insurance company is represented
by eX-Chief Justice Horton of Topeka,
Judge Green of Leavenworth, Judge
Barker of Lawrence, Eugene Ware OF
Topeka and Short Of New York, the ms
surnce attorney. Attorney General
Boyle was assisted in his defense by G.
c. Clemens and David Overmeyer Of To-
peka, David Martin of Atchison, repre-
scented McNall- Attorney General Boyle
made the opening argument, which occu-
pied the forenoon session. He attempt
ell to explain the difference between this
case and that OF the Metropolitan In
surance company, heard by Judge Foster
In this case the Mutual Life Insurance
company had no license to do business,
while the Metropolitan Life Insurance
company had, and the whole question
hinged on the point whether a sovereign
state had a right to prescribe rules UNI
der which foreign insurance companies
should DO business in this state. The
Mutual Life Insurance company, he con-
tended, was trying to get in the federal
court by injunction what ii ought to
have obtained by mandamus proceed
ings in he supreme court OF the state.
He declared that in enjoining him as
attorney general of Kansas the company
was enjoining the state and also decii-
ing a case in advance of a trial. He
ci.ed a decision Of Justice Brewer. in
with he held that state officer might !
have power 10 bring suits under a con-
law, and yet he could be in |
hibited from proceeding illegally under |
a constitutional law.
Judge Williams here suggested that |
this was the important point in the /
case. He said the court had no though: |
of preventing the attorney general from 4
bringing any suit that he had a legal |
right TO bring. Admitting that the al
torney general had a perfect right to in
sutute quo warranto proceedings.
During the progress Of Attorney Cen |
eral Boyle's talk the old Judge took oc- |
casion 10 call him down ana hold his |
argument up 10 the right in away tha. /
made the young man vince. Bui he /
wouldn't bluff bit.
Judge Horton, leading counsel for The /
Insurance company. began his argu- /
ment Immediately upon call Of the after /
noon session. He referred 10 the in 4
junction cases against McNall previously /
heard by Judge Foster. and stated that /
the same questions involved in the pres
ent case We're argued ami disposed Of .
then. He read a letter written by Nc
Nall 70 the president OF the Mutual Life
insurance company, which showed that
the company had eniered he legal Zee
- HEE ann