Source: https://openjurist.org/262/us/346
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 02:18:30+00:00

Document:
Messrs. Charles G. Revelle, of St. Louis, Mo., and A. L. Cooper, of Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Oscar S. Hill, of Kansas City, Mo., for defendant in error.
This is an action brought by the defendant in error in the circuit court of Jackson county, Mo., for money paid by his assignors for annuity certificates issued by the Great Western Life Insurance Company, the predecessor of plaintiff in error. Judgment for $47,463.90, with interest and costs, was affirmed in the state Supreme Court. That court allowed writ of error bringing the case here. A petition for writ of certiorari also has been presented. The federal question asserted is that the state court, in violation of the Constitution and acts of Congress defining the jurisdiction of federal courts, failed to give full faith and credit to certain provisions of a decree of the United States Circuit (now District) Court for the Western District of Missouri, set up in the answer, purporting to cancel and annul the annuity certificates. The defendant in error moves to dismiss the writ of error and opposes the granting of certiorari on the grounds, among others, that the United States court was without jurisdiction to decree the cancellation of the certificates assigned to defendant in error, and that the provisions of the decree relied on by plaintiff in error are void.
'F. M. Pearl and other stockholders of the Great Western Agency Company and other annuity certificate holders of the Great Western Life Insurance Company who are similarly situated, appearing by B. P. Waggoner and James W. Orr, * * *' etc.
The insurance company resumed business and continued until its merger with the plaintiff in error, December 7, 1912. By the articles of consolidation, the latter agreed to pay all debts, liabilities, and obligations of the former. The claims of the certificate holders were specifically referred to, and the plaintiff in error agreed to pay the annuities provided for in such certificates or refund the amounts paid for them, if they should be held by the Supreme Court of Missouri to be valid obligations of the Great Western Company at the time of the merger. The state court found that the certificate holders who assigned to defendant in error were not original parties to the suit, that they did not subsequently intervene or appear in person or by sounsel, that no relief was sought against them by any party to the suit, and that the only relief sought by stockholders and annuity certificate holders, who proposed and supported the plan of rehabilitation, was to have the property returned to the insurance company upon payment of its debts. These findings are sustained by the evidence. The stockholders and certificate holders who did appear in that suit for the purpose of reorganizing the company had no authority or power to represent certificate holders who did not appear. There is nothing in the record to support the jurisdiction of the court of deal with or cancel the annuity certificates assigned to defendant in error. The assignors were denied a hearing upon the matters decre d against them.
The provisions of the decree, attempting to bar and estop certificate holders from making any claim against the insurance company, its officers, stockholders, or assets, and attempting to cancel their certificates and determine that they had no further rights, claims, or demands unless within the specified 20 days, they should pay in $37.50 per share, and, upon surrender of their certificates take stock in the insurance company of par value of one-half the amount so paid, were without jurisdiction. The company could not thus be relieved of its obligations to non-consenting annuity certificate holders and have its property returned to it exempt from their claims. Their rights could not be so disposed of. As to them the decree was not a judicial determination, and the courts of Missouri were right in holding it to be a nullity. See Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U. S. 409, 17 Sup. Ct. 841, 42 L. Ed. 215; Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U. S. 274, 277, 23 L. Ed. 914; McVeigh v. United States, 11 Wall. 259,2 20 L. Ed. 80.
Missouri Pacific R. R. Co. v. Clarendon Co., 257 U. S. 533, 42 Sup. Ct. 210, 66 L. Ed. 354; Piedmont Power & Light Co. v. Town of Graham, 253 U. S. 193, 40 Sup. Ct. 453, 64 L. Ed. 855; Toop v. Ulysses Land Co., 237 U. S. 580, 583, 35 Sup. Ct. 739, 59 L. Ed. 1127; Fay v. Crozier, 217 U. S. 455, 30 Sup. Ct. 568, 54 L. Ed. 837; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. 71, 79, 29 Sup. Ct. 580, 53 L. Ed. 914; Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 100, 25 Sup. Ct. 727, 50 L. Ed. 101. See, also, decisions per curiam: Nesmith v. Ohio, 257 U. S. 622, 42 Sup. Ct. 186, 66 L. Ed. 402; Pueblo of Laguna v. Candelaria, 257 U. S. 623, 42 Sup. Ct. 269, 66 L. Ed. 402; Harvey v. Union Traction Co., 257 U. S. 624, 42 Sup. Ct. 269, 66 L. Ed. 403; Winehill & Rosenthal v. Louisiana, 258 U. S. 605, 42 Sup. Ct. 313, 66 L. Ed. 786; Hartford Life Insurance Co. v. Johnson, 258 U. S. 612, 42 Sup. Ct. 462, 66 L. Ed. 790; Lindsey v. Allen, Attorney General, 258 U. S. 613, 42 Sup. Ct. 462, 66 L. Ed. 791.
Cf. Reynolds v. Stockton, 140 U. S. 254, 264, 11 Sup. Ct. 773, 35 L. Ed. 464; R. S. § 737; equity rules 47 and 48, in force in 1908.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 737