The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-09-10
NORTH DAKOTA
HELPS THE FARMERS
Decision Of Supreme Court 0verrules
the Lower Court in Hail -, -.
Insurance Cases. =.
Judgments Taken on Notes Declared
Void-History of Richland
County Suits.
Special to The Journal.

Special to The Journal
Wahpeton, N. D., Sept 10.--The supreme court
has, handed down two decisions appealed from
Richland county that are Of great Importance
to farmers who were in mutual hail insurance
companies that went into the hands of receivers
before paying losses, and it may be that under
these decisions some Of the money illegally col
lected may be recovered - ~. - -.
The decisions in the cases Of George s..
Montgomery receiver of the Red River Valley
Mutual Hail Insurance company VS.. Andrew
! Whttheck and Montgomery US receiver of the
| same company vs. G. A. Tucker, both Of Valley
City. Both these cases were tried at Wahpeton
before Judge Lauder, who directed verdict in
favor of the receiver. The supreme court re-
verses this verdict and gives an order for, the
appellants and defendants to recover. costs in
both the district and Justice courts as well as in
| the supreme court. r; .'' ''..... .,
The history Of these shows that the
| Red River Valley Mutual Hail Insurance company
was organized at? Wahpeton in April, 1898. In
order to get charter the company had to have
applications for $200,000 Of insurance. This in
surance was secured by A. NJ. Glider, who was
recently connected. with the Hanktnson Insur-
ance company, and was convicted in the United
States court at Fargo Of using the mails for
| fraudulent purposes in getting insurance. The
wrote, about 81 900. 600 of insurance taking as
| premiums the notes Of the insured. These notes
! were made for five yet rs and the company took
| chnttel mortgages the crop for the first yeal
as security. The notes were not for any stated
amount, but were not to exceed 5 per cent OF
the insurance. -..... -.... 81 .-... ~,
| 1He ursC year the company SUSTAINED AedFy
losses by hail, but as nearly all its notes were
| secured 1t succeeded in collecting premiums
enough to pay about 60 per cent on the losses
In 1880 the company did not take mortgages fol
security of the notes, but relied on collecting
on the fve-year notes taken the previous year
| 1t again sustained het w losses and was unable
| to collect much more than enough to pay running
expenses. An application was then made before
Judge Lauder for the appointment of a receiver
and he appointed George S. Montgomery.
| The assets of the company consisted Of. about
$4,000 in cash. and about $40, 600 In notes. Mont
goinery succeeded in collecting several Of these
notes and put large number more in judgments
but the expense so great that the money was
| practically all used in fees and the members
Of the company realized practically nothing or
their losses. [E
| In collecting these notes, which all made
payable at Wahpeton, Montgomery brought suit
before Wahpeton justice and took judgment
! Several of the cases were appealed to the dis
trict court, and in nearly every case Judge Lauder
The two cases above referred to were among
these, and the supeme court reversed the 1owel
court the ground that the applications were
| taken and the policies issued before the com
pany authorized do business. and tina
| these particular policies were for that reason
void because the company had no authority tt
1 Issue them. - .sa-a-' - -
But the supreme court also holds that these
policies and consequently every other policy
issued by this insurance company, were void OF
their faces. because they not drawn ac
cording to the plain provisions of the law rela
i tive to mutual hail insurance companies.
In short. under the decision. it appears tina
these policies were so plainly void that the farm
ers Of this state ought to have saved the large
sums of money that they have. paid out in cour
COSTS receivers fees, attorneys fees and othe
expenses. 81.