Martinsburg herald. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1881-1920, 1899-05-06
STATEMENT BY EQUITABLE
Views Given by vice-Presi-
dent Alexander of the De-
cision on Surplus.
THERE IS NOTHING FINAL
He Explains That Greet Has as Yet
Old Secured Permission to Sue
the Company.

Be Dfvided Not Vat uehed-SurpI
n,-,a.s Yn,. r.o p.r..-o,. MIA
- a. -. $780,
A"ss !"
foiicy Holders.
New York, May 5.-James w. klex-
ander. yice-President of the Equitable
Life Assurance Society, made n public
statement regarding the decision
against the company which was rem
dered by the Appellate Division of the
Supreme Court in Brooklyn in the
suit Of Emil Greet to recover $7,0S7 as
his additional share OF the surplus
fund.
The decision allows Emil tsreeff. a
dry goods commission merchant, 70
bring an action against the Equitable
Life Assurance Society to recover ST.
0S7 as his additional share OF surplus
on n -fifteeu-year endowment policy for
S2O.OOO. which matured in May, 1897.
ON which he paid a premium of S1,457
a wear. and on which at maturity he
received besides the face. SO. 1872 as his
share Of surplus. Greeff asserted that
this was not his full share Of surplus.
and brought action to recover what
he considerd as due. The society in
terposed n demurrer to the effect that
Greeff had not set up a good cause of
II 4fJl0l. 1nlS demurrer WAS SuStfIutsl
nv .Judge DAILY. but overruled. the APP
pellate Court holding that a good cause
of action had been presented. The So
ciety is permitted to serve an answer
70 the sllit.
Mr.. Alcxander's statement Of the
case was as follows:
ssThe bald statement Of the recent de-
cision in the APPELLATE Court Is the
ca,,se az Green against the Equitable
Life js calculated to give the affair IN
air If greater importance than 1t de-
serves. For example there Is no aues
ton about the entire surplus of the
Eouitable and other mutual compan-
les belonging 10 the policy holders.
The only question is how 1t shall be
divided. and when.
Neither is there n question about
the immediate division of the entire
surplus of the s~ociety-the question
arises in regard to a marginal surplus
Of x%56.O0O.UOO. or Whereabouts. very
properly carried over from year to year
as n guarantee against fluctuations in
vaIues. The plaintiff in this action be-
lieyes he is entitled to receive a part
of this in addition to his share of sur
plus which he has received. BY reason
of the forms of legal proceeding an in
auiry into what he would be entitled to
would conn up on n trial of the action
In order to brush away certain legal
o1estions tho socipty's counsel pre-
ferred to demur TO the complaint.
which IN common Variance. Is as
much as TO say. Even admitting the
facts alleged the plaintiff has no
standing in court Judye DAILY In the
court below held In ri learned opin-
ion. that the discretion Of the officers
could not be invaded.
.sTba Apnellate Cont Is divided Il its
opinion mn the ma ioritv hold that the
matter is = fair snbiect for ino1iry.
The surplus Of the society Is divided
into two parts. one. and by far the
laroar mart boInp held under contract
for mo daf.r,,ad dividend nolicv hold
ers rho holders If these nolicies re-
caiya their full share ~ surnlus nrotit
ne determined Nv the actuaries Of fine
Sociatv as oon ~ tbev become entitled
r. II THE other and smaller mart Il
dixis;hle from wear ~ vear according
10 he xisting stare Of affairs amooo
rho ANIMAL div;dand motley holders
Az, a.raafr us,s ono of these animal
dividend nolicv holders and n his
viaw ~ tho case nravailad his lhare
would ha not no ~ oao claimed hut q
very small sum An annlication il 70
he made ~ once IN have tba case carii,
Sad ~ ina canr, ~ AnnaaIs ara ayer
mon On diverse decision tbare rho
Question wonld come nm on trial with
the nov. light of FACTS which in ,ha
oninion ~ nur -eounsel wro,ld disnoss
of the whole tbing satisfactoruv n
nus, NO reuan,he,sed that A. arc,,inr
,agal ,oints IN j damurrar i snaaar
ance Is necessarily and perhaps unfor