New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-01-23
MAYER FILES BRIEF.
THE EQUITABLE SUIT.
Ans1rer TO Papers Filed by Counsel
of Demurripg Defendants.

A++or7e, General Mayer yesterday fled his anal
brief in the suit against the Equitable Life Assur-
ance Society TO recover from the directors large
sums lost by their alleged negligence, improvidence
and the commission Of wrongful and Illegal acts
II Is an answer To the numerous briefs filed by the
counsel Of derurring defendants. among whom
are Strong & CadwaIadeT, Guggenheimer. inter
myer & Marshall. Edward NJ shepard HoWalN
Mansfield and simpson Thatcher Bartlett.
The contentious Of these 6emurring defendants
are summed up by the Attorney General under ten
heads They declare that the code furnishes
remedy only for nalfeasance on the part Of the
directors ana does not warrant action TO recover
losses sustained by e corporation by reason Of the
negligence Of the directors. that the complaint
states no cause OF action for the removal Of any
OF the officers or directors that the causes OF ac-
ton have been improperly united; that there IS
defect OF parties in that with respect to the con-
troversy the surplus Of the society no policy
holder IS made party. The final contention IS
that the people have no right TO enforce any cause
Of action against those defendants who are
longer connected with the management OF the
Equitable.
The Attorney General contends:
First-Thst The people have cause Of ACTION in
acts alleged constitute maIfeasance or neglect Of
second-That the foregoing being true, it is i'm
material whether all Of the defendants were en-
some defendants were engaged In some trans
actions at certain times and other defendants at
Thrd-That there is no nisloinder. of parties or
81 causes Of action IN relation 70 me demand OF
for the method and manner Of the distribution Of
the surplus.
One n the most interesting sections Of the long
brief deals with the question of the distribution Of
the EQutSbles surplus in which all policy holders
OF this and other companies are interested It SAYS:
It is claimed by the denurring defendants that
the directors cannot be called upon 10 account or
the disposition and manaEe cement Of the sO-called
surplus in this action. AT once IL becomes nee
plus forms part of the funds ana property Of the
~ 3i -eIt1l IL 81 - 55a5 SI7+ies ~ ~
Merely calling this fund and property Of the in
the less part Of the body Of the estate whose ad-
ninstration has been committed 10 the care OF the
accomplish Is the establishment OF the standard If
conduct of defendant directors IN relation 10 TINS
may or may not be that the distribution Of this
Iund should be 10 The present poLcynoloerss or
}ITS is nor a. ali Essential 70 the relief here asked
power 10 order distribution Of the surplus ln this
action such determination would in no manner
affect this action
Possibly It may be that the present po1cyholders
o+-- - - - - 80 ~ - er-i+1e5 RI
share N the distribution OF a surplus II distribu-
ton shall at any time be ordered
But the court has the power 10 require In this
connection tlEL the defendants as directors shall
show IN whet manner they have administered, by
Of the funds OF the society Familiarity known as
surplus An accounting having thus been OBJ
tanned b the directors as &c their management
and disposilon or these IlruH TurLher ac-qn my
may not be left 10 some subsequent litigation.
The Attorney General holds that any person who
has ar any time been a director IN the Equitable
whether he is a director now or not is under obi
cation 70 show in what manner he has officially
conducted himself in the management and disposi-
ton Of the surplus and Of the funds and property
OF the company.