The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-09-06

| monetary way. 1t is recited in this report
/ that before or about the 9th of August
1884. the association entered into an agree
ment with the Commercial Alliance Insur-
! ance Company, of New York. to convey tC
the said company the personal property
business and good will thereof and the
| real estate and the effects, real, personal
and mixed. Of the association"
| The general meaning of this is that the
company was in a very bad way and was
| forced to go out of business. The exact
significance of the agreement is much IN
/ doubt, and has been one of the chief mat
/ tiers of litigation in the case. The asso-
| citation people asserted from the beginning
that the New York company proposed to
re-insure all its polfcyhoIders and thus
free the association from all liability in
the matter. The New York company claim
ed that there was simply transfer of real
estate and office furniture. and that no re-
insurance was promised or intended at any
time. The Office of the local association
at 4lg Tenth Street and the building in
which it was located was turned over tC
the New York people. Much depended OF
I what was the actual agreement, as if there
was simply the transfer Of real estate
( the policyholders of the association were
left wholly unprovided for.
| Paid out to Stockholders.
The money received from the sale &c
The New York company was $40 i
/ was Immediately paid out by che officers
I of the local concern to the stockholders
/ the subscribers; of the original capital
stock. each stakeholder receiving $50 q
share for his stock. the par value OF
which was $50. Still there's was no pro.
vision for the policy holders.
The New York insurance company then
in little while. went into liquidation
itself. If it had ever intended 10 rein
sure the policy holders of the Washing
ton concern1 il, thus became unable to do
so. The prospects of the innocent people
who had Joined the association now look
ed very pocri for their ever getting any
thing in return for the money they had
invested. ,eo
At this stage of the affair the courts
began to take a hand Robert Ball and
others filed an equity suit against the
local association and the New York con-
Germ reciting the story of the associa-
ton and its supposed transactions with
the New York company. They asked the
Equity Court to decree a division of any
property of the association to the policy
holders, and claimed that the transfer of
the real estate of the association should
be considered null and void and that the
property should be sold for their benefit.
The Washington association also enter
ed suit against the New York company
Later a number of suits in equity and at
law were filed by different claimants.
The equity suits were all afterward con-
solidated. The courts. in June. 1894, de-
creed that the sale of the real estate to
the New York concern be set aside as
void. Later they ordered that receivers
be appointed to take charge of all the
property, real and personal In July,
1893. the receivers. Messrs. Lipscomb and
Fields, were ordered to sell the property,
which they did. the office building on
Tenth Street for $4,000 and the personal
property for S240.
The difficulties in the case were not
by any means ended at this point, how
ever. Tie money received from the sale
Of the property was to be divided There
were death claims in which the benefic-
iaries Of policies would have received the
full amount named In them If the asso-
cation had not gone to pieces, and other
policy holders had died since the failure
of the company. There were thousands
Of people who had paid varying sums into
the company as assessments or prem
iums. And there were the many law
yers of the various claimants, the re-
ceivers, the court fees, and the auditors
fees TO be provided for. And moreover.
the New York compaay's receivers in
sisted that having paid $4,000 to the
Washington Association they should re-
ceiye all the proceeds of the sale of the
real estate, and If not that at least a
return of their $4,000.
Ncw York Receivers Sue.
The case dragged on and on, from year
TO year. and the court fees and lawyers'
fees, and auditors fees. and receivers
fees kept piling up. The New York re-
ceivers made a vigorous fight in the Dis
trict courts, and on two occasions took
their case to the United States Supreme
Court, but could make no headway in their
attempt to get back either their money Oh
their real estate. The courts, however
they might consider the other claims doubt
fui. never seemed to look with favor on
that of the New York concern.
The several suits in equity were. in June.
1886, referred to Auditor Payne for his
decision as TO the equitable division of the
fund created by the sale of the real estate.
1t Is his report that is now filed The
chief findings of the auditor may be sum,
married. as follows:
The claim of Mrs. Henry Ann Stuart ia
not allowed priority in the distribution of
the fund. Mrs. Stuart's husband. Charles
Stuart, was insured in the association for
$4,000 several years before its failure. and
in 1856 he died, the policy then being in
full force The s., 600 had not been paid to
Mrs. Stuart when the association failed.
Mrs. Stuart entered suit against the as
ISOLATION for the money, and was given
judgment There were no funds to paw
her judgment. however. She wishes to be
paid her entire claim first Auditor PAYNE
holds that she must share pro rata with
the other claimants. A like decision is
rendered in the case of Carrie NJ. Golden
whose husband, Stephen NJ Golden. died
while holding policy of the association.
The claims flied by James S. Edwards as
administrator, and by NJ. S Quarles, were
in cases where people holding policies in
the association had died since the failure
These claims are that the heirs of the
parties should be entitled to the same nor.