The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1901-07-15
Kansas Mutual Files Its Answer
to Phillips Suit.
Claim That an Attempt Was
Made TO Secure 81, 900.
COMPANY is SOLVENT.
Answer Shows That the Bust
ness Is Firm as q Rock.
Say There Has Never Been a
Loss In Investments.

40SS 42A 4Ak GS MA4EAbSe
A general denial Of the allegations in
the suit filed in the United states cir
cult court here by Sherman. Keller <
Hite and Waters & Waters for Z. T.
Phillips of Kansas City. No, against
the Kansas Mutual Insurance company
Of this city, was fled with the clerk OF
the court this morning
Accompanying the denial, IN the form
of an answer to the bill of complaint.
was motion 10 exclude D. R. Kite
from participating in any way what
ever IN the prosecution of the case It
is alleged that D. R. HIte. who made
an examination of the books Of the
Kansas Mutual company for the state
insurance superintendent. intimated
that the suit would not be begun If he
was employed by the Kansas Mutual
company and paid 81. 900 as a fee, as he
would have TO refund part of a sum of
money already accepted by him from
the plaintiff in the present case If the
suit was not brought by him.
The defendants aver that there is no
equity in the case and ask the judge to
dismiss it from further hearing. The
motion III part IolloWS-
In the month Of April of the year
1894 the superintendent of insurance OF
the state OF Kansas, without the knovvl-
edge of this defendant or its officers,
depuTzed the said D. R. Hite to make
in conjunction with said superintendent
and z firm of public accountants, an ex-
haustive examination Of all the affairs
Of the said defendant company There
upon the said Hfte made a detailed ex-
animation of the assets, liabilities, in
come. disbursements, outstanding con
tracts, business methods and history OF
the defendant, consuming about three
weeks time IN making such exaInina-
ton He reported the results of his
examination TO the said superintendent
OF insurance under date of May ;, 1884
'-On or about July II, 1900. the said
D. r Hite called at the Office Of the de-
PENDANT company and stated to its
president and secretary that he had
been informed that certain members of
the corporation holding policies under
its plan Of 1856 intended to institute an
action against the company to deterEn
inc their legal rights and to employ him
as their counsel for that purpose. He
further stated to said officers of the
defendant company that owing to the
fact that he had made the examination
above referred to, ne thought he ought
to offer his services to the company be-
fore accepting employment adverse to
ted. Thereupon the defendant company
accepted his profered services, and
contracted with, and retained him to
act as counsel for it, in connection with
its regular counsel, in all actions that
might be brought against It by holders 4
of policies on the plan OF 1856 relative
to the distinctive rights of such policy
holders. IN pursuance OF such contract !
the defendant then and there paid to
the said D. R. Hite the sum Of $500 as a
retainer fee.
In the month of April. 1901. the de-
fendant company was informed that |
the said D. R. Hite contemplated instf- /
tuting a suit against 1t for the purpose, !
among other things, of testing the l
rights Of the holders of the policies OF /
the plan of 1886 The defendant COM |
pany thereupon stated to him that It /
considered that he was in its employ I
n1ent as to suits of that character and 1
protested to his accepting adverse en-
HIte, personally and through an
other attorney at law who represented /
him at his request. stated to the de-
PENDANT company that he did not I'M /
derstand that he had been employed by /
the defendant to represent it in all 4
cases OF the character mentioned but 1
understood that he had been employed I
to represent it only in a particular case
whose institution was contemplated in \
July 1900 He further stated to the de-
PENDANT company that he had been en-
ployed to bring the suit which would
involve the distinctive rights of the
holders of policies Of the plan of 1886
together with other matters and that
the questions connected with the poll
cies of 1886 were so intimately fnterwo-
ven with the others that the suit could
not be brought without litigating those
questions He further stated to the de-
ten0ant that he had been employed for
a fee Of 81. 600 of which $500 had already
been paid to him to bring said suit:
and that If the defendant insisted l1pon I
him in its employment under
the contract of July II, 1900 that it
should pay him the said sum of 81 o00