The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-06-05
INSURANCE CASE RULING
s.yICE COUNSELLOR CONTRACTS Up
HELD III APPELLATE COURT.
They Have Been Frowned Upon by
the Auditor of State-Supreme
Court Decisions.
1t is Peculiar to Itself

Special "vice-counsellor'' contracts made
by insurance companies. and frowned upon
for the past two years by State Auditor
Hart. were yesterday upheld by the Appel
late Court in its opinion affirming the case
of K. Reynolds Miller against the State
Life Insurance Company, appealed from
the Tippecanoe Circuit Court. Miller was
policy holder in the company and refused
TO pay a premium note on the ground that
his special contract. providing that he was
TO receive a share of the earnings of the
company. to be applied in reduction of flu
ture premiums, was void. The special vice.
counsellor contract provided that there
should not be more than five hundred of
these favored individuals, and that they
should not be required to perform any spe-
cial duties. but that they should participate
in a special renewal commission dividend"
in return for their good will and favorable
influence. The reasoning of Judge Robin
son. who wrote the courts opinion. is ex
tremely interesting, and is. therefore. re-
produced in part, as follows:
1T is argued that the viee-counsellor's
contract Is void because of want of con-
sideratiOn and because appellee was. at the
time the contract was made mutual COM
pany and could not divert its expense
fund TO purposes OF private gain. But We
do not so cOnstrue the contract IL is not
contract of insurance and cannot be con-
strued as a special contract OF insurance.
The poncy or insurance issued to appellant
was complete in itself and makes no refer
ence TO this vice-cOunsellOr' contract. The
contract refers 20 the policy and was 10
continue as long as the policy remained In
force. Although the company a mu-
tuai company, cannot say that the IA
vorable influence and good will especially
what each member owed the company In
any event.
1T cannot be said that the favorable in
huence OF particular individual in par
ticular locality would be of no value TO the
company in extending its business in that
locality. The contract disclOses that its
evident purpose was to secure a number Of
assistants upon whom the company might
rely in extending its business. and when
member of a mutual company contracts to
use his favorable influence he has contract
ed to do something more than the law ex-
acts OF him as member simply of mu-
tuaI company II cannot be said
that the mutual principle OF itself necessar-
lily requires that each member shall be in
sured upon exactly the same terms. :
The act under which appellee was doing
business at the time the contract was eX-
ecuted provides that the company may
make bylaws not inconsistent with the
Constitution and laws of the State or of
the United States. And il must be admit
ted that appellee. through it's proper Of
icers. might make contracts for enlarg-
ing and extending its business.
Judge Robinson added that even If the
ViCe-chancellOr agreement is not en-
forcible contract the judgment of the court
below in this particular case was correct.
The Supreme Court yesterday reversed
the judgment of the Henry Circuit court.
sentencing Alice Green. Of New Castle. TO
the Women's Prison for not more than
fourteen years. on a charge of conspiracy
TO blackmail The Green woman kept a
resort in the vicinity of New Castle. and
was convicted on a charge of combining
with certain other persons to eXtort money
from a farmer named William w. South
ard. by accusing him of being the father
of a child born TO an inmate OF the Green
resort. Southland brooded over the accusa-
ton and the threats until his mind became
weakened. and he committed suicide. The
case was reversed on the technical ground
that the information filed against Mrs.
Green in the lower court did not state
whose money and property the conspira tors
attempted 10 eXtort from Southland.
In affirming the case of the State, on
relation of Henry Fadely. against the
Board of Commissioners of Henry county,
the Supreme Court held that the County
Commissioners of a county cannot be COM
PEELED by writ OF mandamus 10 remove
bridges for the convenience of drainage
commissioners and contractors who are
dredging. streams.
Mrs May +. Smiths judgment of 81 200,
recovered in the Marion Superior Court
against Efroymson q Wolf. proprietOrs OF
the Star store. for false arrest. was af-
frmeG by the Appellate Court yesterday.
Mrs Smith was arrested while carrying
pair of shoes through the store. She eX-
planned that she was taking them TO the
counter at which her daughter worked,
in order that the latter might try the
shoes The who detained her re-
fused TO accept this explanation. ana she
was held In custody until the clerk was
found who had given her permission to
take away the shoes. Inc tact OF the ar
rest was published in the papers at the