The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-04-25
BROW,s ASKS
 FOE RECEIVER Poy Holder Enters the < Equitable Muddle. HIS RIGHTS DISREGARDED Administration Alleged to Be
 Unlawful. Hyde and Lord Request That an In- junction be rHsued Against the
 Proposed Plan of Mutu-
 alizati0n.

junction be rHsued Against the
 Proposed Plan of Mutu-
 aIization.
 New York, April 24-J. Willis Brown, a citizen of Maryland, through his attorneys, Battle and Marshall, or this city today filed an action against the Equitable Life Assurance Society in the United States Circuit Court ask ing that a receiver be appointed and for an accounting for the benefit Of himself and other policy holders who may care to join with him in the action.
 MT. Brown is the holder of a $25.oO0 policy in the company, and alleged that the officials have disregarded his legal rights and have not paid his proper proportion of the net surplus.
 In the bill of complaint the com plainant ayers that the administrator of the funds by the Society has been unlawful; that officers Of the society have personal interests adverse to the interests of the policyholders; that some of the officers are personally in- terested in banks, trust companies, nre insurance companies and other cor porations and syndicates, with which inc corporation habitually transacts busiuess; that these facts have become matters of public notorlety and scandal and have brought the business of the Society to a standstill and that the Society Is not a proper conserVator or the funds belonging to the policy holders.
 He says that he has already been dauaped to the extent of at least S2. 900, and that his damage in the fu- ture would be more than $2.000 1T the present course of the society Is not re- strained He asks for relief; that an injunction be issued preventing the so- ciety from holding the surplus fund; that the society produce all of It's re- cords in the matter; that an accounting be taken; that q trust be declared to exist on the fund in the hands of the society; that a receiver be appointed for the surplus fund to hold 1t pending the ascertainment by the court or the equitable rights of the complainant and of other present and former policy holders of the society.
 The defendants have twenty days in which either to file an answer or de- murer to the complaint.
 TnJuneti0n Asked.
 1 New York, April 24-Counsel repre- senting James H. Hyde, Vice-Presi- dent of the Equitable Life Assurance Society, and Franklin B. Lord, a stock holder in the society, who has asked for an injunction against the propos ed plan for mutualizing that society, 4p- peraed before Justice Maddox in the Supreme Court in Brooklyn today to oppose a petition by James w. Alex ander, President of the society, to strike out certain references to MT. AL exander from the petition by which MT. Hyde intervened In the Lord .lc- tion.
 Notice has been given by counsel for Mir. Alexander that he objects to the statement in the Vice Presidents peti- tion to the effect that the proposed mu- tualiZation plan was passed by the board of directors without regard to the consent of the majority of the stock and that 1t was inspired solely by instructions of Mir. Alexander, as- suming to act in his capacity as Pres ident of the Society. Counsel also ob- jects to the assertion that MT. Alex ander has been hostile to his trust.
 Samuel Untermyer. counsel for MT. Hyde, told the court today that he had received a copy of the Nexander pe- tition and had heart that it was to be presented to the court today and that he was there to oppose 1t. The court, however. had not received the Alexan- der petition and there was no hearing.
 The adjourned hearing on the appli- cation of Herbert II. Tull. holder of a S10.060 policy in the Equitable Life As- surance Society for an injunction re- straining the directors and officers of that institution and the State Super intendent of Insurance from taking any further proceedings to obtain an amended charter for the Society, was continued today before Justice Mclean in the Supreme Court. Lawyer Wood ruff, who appeared for Mir Tull de- clared that 1t would be better to have a dissolution of the Society than to permit the amended charter to be adopted.
 "Three privileges were given the policyholders by the original charter" said he. "One was carried out. but nothing ever has been done with the others. This proposed charter Is mere ly a blind, pretending to give a great deal to the policy-holders, but giving they almost nothing"
 A Provision Disregarded.
 The provision of the charter that stockholders shall receive dividends months. he declared had been dlsre- gardej.
 Mir. Woodruff pointed out that the proposed amended charter would con tain the word may" instead of shall" in the clause relating 10 the payment of dividends and would render the clause practically worthless The en-
 
 preventing policyholder bringing q suit for an accounting against an in- surance company In this State without the approval nf the State attorney gen eral was characterized by MT. wooJ- ruff as absolutely iniquitous and the amended charter was termed by him a gold brick which looks nice, but when you come to examine 1t you find it Is worth nothing" He declared that all the stockholders were entitled to, under the original charter. was the S100, 900 capital subscribed by them and that all the surplus belonged to the policy holders.
 Attorney Hornblower, representing the society. in reply said that action of the Legislature had been upheld by the Court of Appeals as eminently just as otherwise, with a million and half of policy holders scattered all over the world, 1t would have been easy for any policy holder in a State to bring suit for an accounting and the appoint ment of a receiver and this would re- suit in endless litigation.
 Mir Hornblower said 1t had already been decided by the courts that poli- cv holder could not recover his pro rata share of the surplus but was entitled to participate In the profits as laid down by the board of directors, which permitted him to share in the profits