The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1899-04-28

| Then the Aetna company made it's first
| overtures to one of the counsel in the
case, not to Mr., Belts. ! don't think
| should mention the counsel 1t was
| soon seen that the Aetna intended a
settlement that was substantial and to
do something of substantial Importance
in closing up the long line of conduct
which had continued for thirty years,
| and it transferred from the stock de-
| partment to the mutual department
| $317701 in cash, and also transferred
| from the stock to the mutual depart
ment $1,00o,000 of assets which did net
first mortgage securities at per cent.
interest not 100000 cash but 81 600, 900
assets, which made quite an addition
to the strength of the mutual depart.
| hent"
| Mr. Kenealy-"What do you mean by
| expenses"
| Mr.. Alling- Lawyers charges, etc.
If we succeeded the state was to have
salvage on the sums received for the
mutual department, and the first agree
ment was drawn on that theory Gov
ernor Buckley thought that the stock
| department should pay expenses of the
| department did so pay The agreement
was presented in writing to the superior
court and was affirmed by that court.
The duty of the insurance commission
er Is to see that the insurance compan-
les carry on the business in a legal
manner He is not the agent of the
policy holder, but the agent of the law,
and we felt from the first that it was
Mr.. Belts duty to consider the question
as one of public policy as we'll as of
private right, and to consider the result
of compromise on ALL If there was
any sudden change Of plan on his part
1 didn't know it, When we struck the
question of actual trial there were no
funds to conduct it, and we were stag
mated The general assembly didn't
furnish us with funds to go on with
the case. / have not intended to say
anything which it would be unprofes-
slonal in me to say. A settlement of a
controversy, honorably conducted,
works we'll. I don't think the commit
tee wants to question me in detail
where the compromise began and where
it ended, but that it should see that q
reasonable degree of diligence was
used."
Judge ungerford-"As one of the ell
ements of this settlement in the COM
plant there were two specific charges
that the stock department had imposed
on the mutual department an unlawful
charge and levied from that depart
ment Sal 415.56 as a commission for
conducting its business, which, it was
claimed was not authorized by the re-
hot1 a
that money was turned from the mutual
department to the stock department
Now, there was this important claim
made by the Aetna Life--that whatever
question there was as to their right to
transfer from the mutual to the stock
department, after 1874 there had been
an important and material change in
their contracts, and that after that
there could be no claim for a re-change
from the stock to the mutual depart
ment, and that on the surrender of
policy in the mutual department they |
had the right to issue paid-up policies |
in the stock department. Judge Shum-
way, who decided the last demurrer, |
considered the contract with the policy
holders in the mutual department and |
the construction to be given to that |
contract, and said that the court would |
interfere only so far as contracts had |
been avoided. When we came to a set
Element we saw a common ground. We |
compromised on the basis that they
should turn back the $141, 900 with in
terest, and turn back into the mutual
department all policies issued on the
half-note plan, not less than $1,000,0 900
in amount.
ut was found that the assets referred
to amounted to $1,175,000, and that
amount was turned back. OF course
this suit was contested by the Aetna
Life with all the vigor of its power as
a corporation, and it was vigorously
asserted that the insurance commission
err had no standing in the courts, and
that those matters going back to 1861
were barred by the statute of limita-
tons. While the superior court decided
those questions adversely to the Aetna,
they would not have rested there, but
gone to the supreme court for review
and if error had been found in any of
those decisions it would undoubtedly
have involved a new trial, so that con-
sdering this uncertainty, the insurance
we thought, indicated
the state in his course; that a substan-
tial gain had been made; that this long
should be ended, and it
was ended with credit to the state and
to the insurance commissioner. | never
dreamed that the insurance commits
sioner would be called before the legis-
ature on the charge of collusion, and l
never heard an intimation that the
Justice which characterized him in that
lid not abide with him to the end in
seeing that the decree was carried
out.'
Mr.. Kenealy--"S Suppose your conten-
ion had been upheld, what was the
amount that the Aetna Life would have
oeen compelled to pay over?'
1--WE claimed the payment back OF
hat $141,0 and that the defendant
render complete account of
profits in the stock department and I
ransfer them to the mutual depart ,
nent." II
"Have you no idea as to the
mounts? If
II understand that our actuary could
lot arrive with any defniteness at the :
mount. He claimed that the amount :
vas very large 7
you struck the amount Of $141,00 c
~ examination of the books Of the :
What struck me was that n