New-York tribune., 1909-03-02
EQUITABLE WINS CASE
SUPREME COURT DECIDES.
Holds Bro1rn Has No Cause tor
Action, Reversing Locer Tribunal.

zz-.-b,,,+o, March The Supreme Court Of the
United States to-day reversed the oeclsoh OF me
United States Circuit Court Of Appeals TOT me
Second Circuit directing the Circuit Court Tor me
Southern District of New York 10 hear the case OF
J WILCOX Brown a resident of Maryland as'-
the Equitable Life Assurance SOCIETY," involving
charges Of uismanagenent. The New York CIRCUIT
Court dismissed the case on q demurrer
Justice Peckham, who announced to-day oe-
cson said the court had decided that there was no
cause for NJ Browns action and held That ne "aS
entitled neither % accounting nor 10 me appoint
rneut of receiver The decision of the court belo"
was favorable hearing for Brown but to-day
opinion failed 10 uphold that view
Mr Brown was supposed 70 represent himself
and $50 90 other policyholders- He asked TOT th7
appointment Of a receiver and q general account
ing, alleging that the company was organized
the mutual plan he and all other pohcyholoeIS
entitled participate in the division of lhe
surplus He contended that the distribution OF
profit had not been extensive as IL snouid De-
He charged indeed. that SlOooo.Po more than was
necessary had been retained in the treasury Of the
society. and that the maintenance Of so large
there had resulted in eKtravagant salarles
and other rasteful expenditures Ihe 1ncult
Court dismissed the bill demurrer but 'ile
Court Of Appeals held that the bill alleged fraud
the company must make answer and ahoW 'he
case be decided its merits
In the course Of his opinion Justice Peckhan took
into consideration the effect Of Adhesion aiohs
the lines Of Mr.. Browns contention, saying;
Even II court Of equity had jurisdiction we
must consider the result of decree IN accoI =. NJ
LII NJ o1oWn coipia5st t 7ope han half
rnon poIicytolderz with almost incalGqlape cut
surplus reaching into hundreds Of millions, me TS 5
Up Of its business because Of although n9e S; N
necessary consequence of, the haSTsnt
oe Inast o1ssSsToqs Us g sss II plsoe the insti-
Tf{o ~ ere b5s m of Teiver While It is paying
promptly al Of its obligations and Win n pIi- :.
daily engaged in taking new business under
oeTet anssernent: ould 6s ss Rsfsn5gnt Rr559gt and
which Il would be mild 70 characterize as rum
persons and really beneficial TO In addition
t2 these ohservations i has haPPensa 9 csosep
rev 9cers PLACED IN e9mmsnd sd f6oe S9G
Justice Reckhsrn also considered Mr. Browns al
legations relative the Encouragement OF former
officials. and IN that connection said
The various allegations IN regard TO waste mis-
funds Of the defendant and also the alleged fraud
d not show anv inequtable or improper dfstTthu-
f6s 1 e he The et @ f sdo s9ns odcF 3e has any been
70 E'o5. ye. The han f Ss 81 feaee sas ere is is s
sverrnent enywhere in the bill that the amount 81 9,
fsirly and eQ1ftabiy distributed TO eaoh Of the
rocyholders according to the amount q ms pollcy
Istions theretcfore adopted BY the defendant Tor for
taste and miss sppropriation before tie moneys #
s defendant ever reach the sSrplls funds; , ano
dsNon for the jurisdiction Of court Of equity IN
sucS case, unless il appears that the relation pc
rz k-fs-za polityholder eud the defendant Is tnaf
Esser IS the trustee Of the former by reason OF
thy trust relaSfu them resulting from the
Sss1rsnte Of TalsczCto the complainant The com
uls1nahts TO this effect has never oeen
yegarde,d as the law in the state Of New York
I Referring 70 NJ. Ryan. whose acquisition Of
stock frequent reference was made in Mr- Browns
ccnlplairt. the opinion said:
So far as the averrnents IN the bill go Is 70 tho
purchase Of majority OF me STOCK ot the Geieno
= prove the existence Of facts material 20 the
cause Of action attempted 10 be set forth