The Newark star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1909, 1909-07-01

these increased death benefits so that
final decree made in favor of the
complainant might seize upon the situ-
alton in the same condition in which
1t was at the time when it was ar
tested by the .preliminary injunction of
this COURT The1 parIicufsrA subject mat
ter of the litigation (Which is really
only one of the various complaints set
out in the bill) which is now in issue
relates to the above mentioned in
creased death benefits or additions to
policies.
IF the mpa is not enjoined, it
will proceed to pay the policies of the
elass above referred to upon maturity
by death, with such additions thereto
as are contemplated by the plan COM
planned of. If, upon final hearing. this
Is ~adjudged to be unlawful, then the
, as a separate and distinct
entity will have lost from its assets
the amount of the increased benefits.
which it shall have paid on all policies
which shall have matured between
July 5. 1907 and the GATE of the final
decree. Mr.. Gore, the actuary of the
says that, in his opinion. the
cost to the company of making these
payments would not within the next
lAilCC ll1BIltlIS tACtGo ltG Suin vi 1OItA-
W. thousand dollars. Let US suppose
thatSthe final hearing cannot be reached
within three months and that 1t will
not be reached before the first of jan
uary *
by that time, on Mr.. Cores basis,
the total cost to the company will not
exceed 500, 900. This, of course, will be
borne by the shareholders on a pro rata
basis. The complainant holds 725
shares out of 10000, and it will there
fore be readily seen that his proper
ton of the loss. II it should be event
ually determined to be a loss, would
not be 4 very large sum OF money.
Although the suit as begun is a rep
resentatiVe sui. and is Tor the ben
eht not oniy OF the complainant, but
OF all oth1r stockholders SINH AIRY sit
mated, who snail come in and contrib
ute to the expense thereof, yet at tho
date CT this argument the only COM
plainant was Mr.. Blanchard, and /
thlnk hat / must deal with the record
as it stands. because at the present
time he has sole control Of the suit
and may prosecute it or discontinue 1t,
rs he wishes.
IF the scheme should be declared to
be unlawful the assets of the company
are sufficient to indemnify the COM
plainant against his proportion of the
loss. AT any rate, he has behind those
assets the responsibility of the direc-
tors, and ii the prayer OF the bill is
not broad enough to include their liza
bility, the court would undoubtedly. on
application, permit an amendment
which would reach to that end.
mother reason for denying the in
...As- ..ls.. .-., $3.50 x-t+L o-naf
force by counsel for the company is
that growing out of convenience. IT Is
a well-settled principle in courts of
equity tina where the legal right is
mot sufficiently clear to enable the
court to form a settled opinion it will
be governed in deciding an application
for a preliminary injunction by consid-
erations of the relative convenience and
Inconvenience which may result to the
parties from granting or withholding
Deoctrine has been applied in
this State in many cases. (Cites cases..
1t appears that notice of the increased
benefits has been sent Broadcast to al
the agents of the company, numbering
upwards of twelve thousand, and has
been published in other ways, so that
1t is probable that a large number OF
the policy-holders favorably aiecttd
thereby have knowledge OF 1t. 1t would
be disastrous to the ~company's busi-
ness to have the company placed in the
position of being obliged to say that
these benefits. Notwithstanding its ac-
ton, and it's wish in the matter, must
be withheld pending a litigation over
their legality. It would offer an adj
vantage to its competitors which ought
tt be avoided if possible
Finally, the complainant claims that
under the 18th section, chapter p, of
the laws of 1907 q. 1907, 140), the dis
.~tribution of these benefits Is absolutely
forbidden. BY virtue of thai statute
every domestic stock life insurance
company was compelled to elect on. or
before September l, 1907, whether Ii
would conduct its life insurance bust
ness by the issue of participating or
non-participating policies, and should
file it's election in the proper public
Office, and that after having so elected
1t should not be lawful for such COM
;pany thereafter to conduct both the
participating and non-participatins
forms of life insurance. In connection
therewith chapter II of the laws of the
same year q. 1907, 1922 Is called to the
"a lit ~ 1h'D
all companies issuing participating pol
.icies to ascertain and apportion the
surplus of the company annually.
The defendants argued that the
statute first mentioned does not apply,
for the reason that there is no con-
Stractual right in the policy-holder to
demand what is now offered to him as
q gratuity, and that this diferentiates
participating policies from those In
Guided within the present scheme.
These are questions which ought not
TO be attempted to be decided upon the
meagre evidence now in the case, for 1t
is obvious that their settlement depends
upon a large number of facts which are
sgSt and cannot be placed before the
court properly by ex parte a~fidavits.
IT will, therefore, advise an order that
the motion be denied.
{ (Signed) JAMES e. HOWELL.
- sfxy,aa ohonaaltnr -