Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1911-09-23
GETS RULE IN
SUIT TO MAKE 'PRU
RATABLES HIGHER
Company Must Show Why $751;
44l,44l Should Not Be
Added to $l74,42l,933.

Chief Justice William s. Gummere
today granted the city a rule to show
cause why a %mandamus should rot
issue against the Prudential Life In
Company and Vivian M.
Lewis, State commissioner of banking
and insurance, compelling the comp II
and commissioner to add $23, 441, AL. %
to the taxing valuation of the COM
pany. making the figures read $197,S63,-
al 10, as against $174,4 AL 1888. as they
were returned by the company and the
banking commissioner
TIE rule to show cause was made re-
turnable on the opening day of the
Supreme Court the first Tuesday in
Novsmer, at Trenton. City Attorney
Herbert Boggs and Francis Child, jr.,
representing the city of Newark, APP
Piled for a writ of mandamus, but,
after an argument that lasted more
than an hour, during which the two
lawyers named and r. V. Lindabury,
for the insurance company, discussed
all angles of the matter, Justice Gum
mere ended the argument by granting
q rule to show cause why the man.
damus should not issue.
Both sides were insistent h a their
view of the matter was right, Mr.. Lin
dabury being ably assisted by e. ID.
Duffield and Major Carl Lentz, for the
insurance company, the latter two
taking no part in the argument. but
being busy at all times with sugges-
tions to Mr.. Lindabury.
ompan Denies Liability.
The 1923, AL, AL. 90 in question repre-
sents the amount held by the company
I'm deferred dividend policies and ac-
cording to the contention of the COM
pany, and which was upheld by State
Banking and Insurance COMMISSIONS
Lewis, Is not a part of the policy liza
bilities of the company.
In making up the city tax rate for
the year 1911 the city figured this
amount in the tax rate, but in the re-
turn made on the certificate of the
State banking commissioner it was
rot included. This return vas made
on June 25, 1911, n dated as of De-
cember 81, 1910. In the petition pre-
scented by Mr.. Boggs OF behalf of the
city it was asked that a writ of man
damus be issued to determine why the
company and insurance n banking
commissioner should not be compelled
to correct the value on the outstand-
ing policies to include the more than
S23, 0O0,0 900 the company holds for de-
ferred dividend policies.
Mr.. Boggs's argument was to the eff
feet that this was really a part of the
Policy liability of the company, and
in this he was finally upheld by Justice
Gummere after a hard fight by the
lawyers for the insurance company.
1t was contended by Mr.. Lindabury
that the amount in question did not
represent policy liabilities, but was a
fund set aside that eventually the pol
i~cy-holders would participate in. nHe
said the petition of the city represented
the proposition inaccurately in that it
made no mention whatever that the as
sessment made by the city had been
appealed by the company to the
County Tax Board, where the city was
upheld, and that later the matter had
been taken to the State Board of Taxa
ton, where the matter was still pend
ing.
Sure TO Get Into Courts.
Mr.. Lindabury said the matter was
sure to get into the courts eventually
and asked that the writ of mandamus
be not granted at this time. Mr.. Lin
dabury pointed out that in his belief
the city wanted a mandamus at this
time in order to charge the company
with a II per cent. penalty if the taxes
be not paid by December 20.
In answer to this contention Chief
Justice Gummere remarked that the
Supreme Courts fall term would open
on the first Tuesday in November, and
that in view of the fact that such a
large sum of money was involved he
was satisfied that the case in all its
aspects would be heard by the highest
legal body of the State and disposi-
ton made of it before the time ex-
pired before the payment of taxes with
out penalty.
He Their went into a discussion of the
rights of the State commissioner in the
matter and pointed out that as a
statute fixed the powers of that Of
ficer and gave him discretion to a great
extent, the Supreme Court would do
nothing to taxi away the powers grant
ed him by the Legislature; but he did
point out that if the State banking and
insurance commissions had made n
mistake In calling the 1923, 100000 de-
fered dividend policies as not taxable,
a rule to show cause followed by a
mandamus would quickly determine the
legal aspect of the company, He then
granted the rule to show cause as told
oh0uo