Case Name: First Russian Insurance Company et al., Respondents, v. James A. Beha, as Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1925-04-07
Citations: 240 N.Y. 601
Docket Number: 
Parties: First Russian Insurance Company et al., Respondents, v. James A. Beha, as Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 240
Pages: 601–605

Head Matter:
First Russian Insurance Company et al., Respondents, v. James A. Beha, as Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, Appellant.
(Argued February 26, 1925;
decided April 7, 1925.)
Insurance corporations — seizure by foreign government of property of insurance company within its domiciliary country — discontinuance by company of business in United, States — action to recover property deposited with Superintendent of Insurance for protection - of policyholders.
First Russian 7ns. Co. v. Stoddard, 212 App. Div. 841, affirmed. '•
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered January 15, 1925, modifying and affirming as modified a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term without a jury. The action was brought to obtain the payment and delivery, subject to suitable provision assuring the payment of any indebtedness of the plaintiff company, of $223,000 par value New York city stock belonging to the plaintiff company which had been deposited with the Superintendent of Insurance, pursuant to the provisions of the Insurance Law, for the protection of the policyholders of the company in the "United States, the plaintiff company at the time of the commencement of the action having discontinued the transaction of business in the United States and having paid all its obligations to United States • policyholders and creditors with the exception of certain claims in dispute. The question was whether defendant could properly and legally surrender the property in question to the present board of directors of the plaintiff company.
Albert Ottinger, Attorney-General (Edward G. Griffin and Joseph C. H. Flynn of counsel), for appellant.
Frederick B. Campbell and Paul C. Whipp for respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The considerations which lead to a reversal in the case of Russian Reinsurance Co. v. Bankers Trust Company, decided herewith (240 N. Y. 149), are not presented by the record in this case. The continued existence' of the corporation and the authority of the directors are conclusively established by the findings which have been unanimously affirmed. The defendant holds the property and is sued as an officer of the State and there is no danger of recovery against him in another jurisdiction.