The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-10-22
COURT REFUSES RELIEF
CAN NOT INTERFERE WITH COM.
PANY'S INTERNAL AFFAIRS.
WHEN IT IS A FOREIGN CORPORATION
Even Policy Holders in Mutual Company
Member of the Corporation, Can
Get no Relief from EAces-
sive Assessments.

y decision of considerable importance
as affecting policy holders and members
Of assessment insurance companies was
handed down in the Supreme court this
week, Justice Montgomery writing the
opinion. The case was that of j. j.
Howard VS.. Mutual Reserve Fund Life
Association of New York.
j. j. Howard insured his life in this
company, received a certificate of mem-
bership and agreed to pay the admission
fee, dues for expenses and mOrtuary as
sessments. A bylaw of the company
embodied in the policy of Howard de-
clared: Whenever the death fund Of
the association is insufficient to meet
any existing claims by death an assess
ment shall be made upon the entire
membership in force at the date of such
death for such a sum as the directors
shall have established and published. ac-
cording to the age OF each member"
and by another bylaw in force at the
time, plaintiff became Il member of the
association assessments for each MEM
Der were fixed. that of plaintiff How
ard being $210 for each $1,000 of in
surance. Up to June 18th, 1895. assess
ments were levied and collected on plain
tiff at these rates but at that date and
again in january, 1898, the directors
greatly increased plaintiffs assessments
and those of all others who became mem
hers before 1890, but did not increase
the assessments in a proper notice Of
those who became members after 1890.
The amount collected from Howard in
excess of the agreed notes was $15565.
Plaintiff brought action to secure judg-
ment for this amount and asked that
the company be restrained from collect
ing further assessments in excess of that
considered legal.
In the lower court the defendant com
pany demurred to the action on the
ground that the amount was less than
$780, and thee ourt therefore did not
have original jurisdiction; that the facts
cited in the complaint did not constitute
4 cause of action because the plaintiff
being a member of III foreign corporation
sought to have the court to in
terfere with the internal manage
ment of it's affairs without ex-
hausting his remedies within the cor
poration. because the court could not
enforce its injunction against defendant,
and because the plaintiff had an adequate
remedy ut law. The demurrer also cited
that the court had no jurisdiction of the
subject matter of the cause All these
contentious the lower court sustained.
The Supreme court holds that the low
er court did not have original jurisdic-
ton and says that while money paid TO
a public officer under protest can be re-
covered there is no law to recover where
money is paid upon demand Of another
with full knowledge of all the facts"
The court sustains the lower court
that Il State court can not afford cquta
Bile relief by injunction even TO one cI
its citizens, who is member of
foreign corporation, by an order com-
manding the corporation to do or NOT
to do certain specified acts connected
with the internal management Of
its corporate affairs Such mat
ters fall within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the courts of the
home State of the corporation. See
ton 1862 of the Code the court says
does not cover the case because it can
give no jurisdiction over the officers of
the corporation who are citizens Of an-
other State. The opinion of the Mary
land court is cited, - Atlantic Rep.
944.
The court says to undertake to grant
lHe TelleI dSkeu WOulu require ine
court to undertake to investigate and
control the management of the foreign
corporation Plaintiff is a member OF
the corporation and complains of his
treatment as such and not as an indvid-
ual citizen OF the State, and there
being no fraud the court holds
il is powrless to interfere. If
there had been fraud, which was
not alleged. the court could
have mtcrfered as also if defendant had
declared the policy fortified.
The court says finally: But the sub
iect matter and the officers Of the de-.
PENDANT corporation are beyond the jurts-
liction of our courts in this case and
he remedy sought is not in our power
70 grant We have not found il neces-
,ary to consider the other grounds The
Judgment of the court below in sus-
aiming the demurrer is affirmed"
The prayer of plaintiff to amend his
on the ground that the de.
endant company has become domes-
ic corporation since the action was
'egun was denied because il involved
questions OF fact aud a matter of law
ntirely foreign TO the ease as made
~ en- appeal"
Simmons. Pou and Ward appeared for
he plaintiff and Shepherd and RuNhee
mi j. w. HnSdalc for defendant.