New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-05-04
SUIT AROUSEs INTEREST.
ACTION AGAINST EQUITABLE LIFE DIS
CUSsED BY INSURANCE MEN.
yICE-PREs1DENT OF THE COMPANY SAYS
MORE IMPORTANCE rs GIVEN TO THE
AFFAIR THAN 1T DESERVES
HOW OTHER CONCERNS
VIEW THE MATTER.

HOW OTHER CONCERNS
VIEW THE MATTER.
The case OF Emil Greet against the Equitable
life Assurance Society. published In The
Tribune yesterday aroused a great deal OF hveiy
discussion among life insurance men in this
CITY. In spite OF the fact that the decision
given In Brooklyn on Tuesday by the Appellate
Court did not touch the merits OF the case. but
was founded on a technicality, the Language
~ Judge woodward when he said that Greer,
being a policy holder was apparently entitled
10 n share in the entire net surplus OF the COM
many. instead of a share IN only portion OF
that surplus as the company contends raised
what WAS felt TO be a most important and inter-
esting point.
For wears the vast surplus OF the Equltape'
now advertised as S57.O00,OO0. has provoked In
ouiries among insurance men as to whom IL
realIv belonged. the stockhoders-for the Equi-
table is a Joint stock company-or the poHcy-
holders IN the case OF strictly mutual com
panies no such question arises. The EquitaDie
argues that It's surplus is held for the deferred-
dividend policy-holders, just the same as other
companies do; but the point raised is wne'her'
nv neglecting 10 call this fund a reserve fund'
or I'm fact anything else but surplus, II mas
not made It liable TO division In the way ureei
asserts Opinion seemed divided yesterday
concerning the outcome Of the case.
HOW THE COMPANY VIEWS 1T.
At the office of the Equitable. vice-President
Alexander gave out the following statement:
Tho ,.,d statement Of the recent decision in the
Appellate Court in the case Of Greer asan sr ' an
Equitable Life is calculated TED to ss deserves rHe For
ample there is question about the entire Surplus nus
tha holders,
how II shall be divided and when Netner - The
any question about the soceY for the question arises
in regard to marginal surplus OF 100000 ye%p
or therea6Ous very ppGpe AGAINST fluctuations in
The plantiff in this action believes he is entitled
TO receive part of this In addition TO his snare OF
surplus which he has received. BY reason OF tne
forms Of b Legal se o Would an up on trial
the action. In order to brush away certain d rS
questions the socety's counsel preferred TO demur
TO the complaint. which in common parance, s as
much to say: Even admitting the fa cos,r a.
Judge Daily. in the court below, held in learned
opinion that the discretion Of the Officers could not
opinion. but the majority hold that the matter Is
a fair subject for inquiry. ,,.., ,.. ..,o
parts one and by far the larger part being held
under contract for the pVl bs,
full share Of surplus profits. as determined by the
actuares Of the society as soon as 1ney ~ S,ys
ible from year to year. according 70 me exis,tlne
state Of affairs: among the annual-ulvioenu po,Gs
dend policy wand and be h ns mes cmed
An application is to be made at once to have the
Sass @ adSerse Sc decon would
come up on trial with the new Ight 81 ,ac.s %htS S
Il must be remembered that in arguing legal
and perhaps unfortunately, that of an acceptance
OF the statement Of facts made by plaintiff which
be in the present case on going into that SIDE OF
the subject.
A STATEMENT BY COUNSEL.
W. B. Hornbower and C. B. Alexander, Of
counsel for the Equitable made this statement:
In order that the decision OF the Appellate Dlvs
ion Of the New-York Supreme Court in Brooklyn on
ciety in the suit against 1t by Emil Greet, should
not be misunderstood we state that this decision
has never yet been brought to trial on the facts.
the m TO n AMONG wSc
is the question TO how far the discretion OF the
holders against TOO extreme division OF surplus
The Court before which the demurrer was hrst
stated in the complaint no cause OF action was set
forth against the defendant, the appellate Ri
Justice. however, dissenting.
In its opinion the Court says: That the society
the surplus; that it may largely Increase Its re-
serve fund for the security of its policy holders or
cover contingent liabilities; Is not disputed os
complaint to be taken as true, and those facts
ST ST fade of IA. 'S aSs
to withdraw the demurrer and answer over
the Appellate Division is reversed on appeal be
ultimately tried the facts. and all questions
10 d fbe OF msan e ~ de g viii Seek re
view In the Court OF Appeals, the highest court in
ADpellate Division
Brooklyn
OPINIONS OF OTHER COMPANIES.
At the Office OF the New-York Life Insurance
Company George w. Perkins second vice-presi-
dent, said: THE decision does not affect this
company. for not Joint stock institu-
ton, like the Equitable. We do not lump our
surplus in the same way. either We divide 1t
into three parts-irst an additional policy re-
serve voluntarily set aside by the company, Of
50 S3S GIG; second. Surplus reserved funds
voluntarily set aside by the company. OF $685..
4l4234, and third, other funds for all other
contingencies, Of SS623,3 $40. making a total Of
S37,S7G,179. That big total we do not regard
as a surplus at all, but class 1t with our
liabilities
Strictly speaking, surplus Is what one pos
sesses over and above all that one owes. We
owe our alleged surplus to our policy holders.
and so 1t is not a surplus. The Equitable may
have laid itself open to attack by that loose use
OF the word surplus but l do not believe it
will lose the case when 1t comes TO be tried on
its merits. because its surplus is really UNI
divided profits"
President McCurdy Of the Mutual said that
since his company was not on the most friendly
footing with the Equitable II did not become
him to discuss a case in which the Equitable
was alone interested. He admitted that Judge
Woodward was an able jurist. but said that
Judge Goodrich who dissented. was also an