Case Name: PERRY v. MUTUAL RESERVE FUND LIFE ASS'N
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1899-06-13
Citations: 58 N.Y.S. 844
Docket Number: 
Parties: PERRY v. MUTUAL RESERVE FUND LIFE ASS’N.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 58
Pages: 844–849

Head Matter:
PERRY v. MUTUAL RESERVE FUND LIFE ASS’N.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
June 13, 1899.)
Co-operative Insurance Company—Action by Member.
Section 56 of the insurance law (Laws 1892, c. 690), providing that'no order, judgment, or decree for an accounting, or restraining or interfering with the prosecution of the business of an insurance company, should be made, except on the application of the attorney general, or in an action by a judgment creditor, or in supplementary proceedings, applies to an action by a member against a co-operative insurance company, and deprives him of the legal capacity to maintain it, where he seeks thereby to compel it to perform the agreements of his policy in the common interest of a large body of the policy holders, so as to involve a more or less serious interference with the management of the company, the necessity of accounting with a great number of other persons respecting vast sums received by defendant in the course of its corporate existence, and an inquisition into the management of its business.
Woodward, J., dissenting.
Appeal from, special term, Kings county.
Action by Andrew J. Perry against the Mutual Reserve Fund Life • Association. From an interlocutory judgment sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before GOODRICH, P. J., and .CULLEN, BARTLETT, and WOODWARD, JJ.
Andrew J. Perry, in pro. per.
W. T. B. Milliken (Frank R. Lawrence and George Burnham, Jr., on the brief), for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
It may be that, if we felt at liberty to treat the question as an open one, we would concur in the opinion of our Brother WOODWARD; but, in our view, the present action is substantially the same in character as that of Swan v. Association, 155 N. Y. 9, 49 N. E. 258, and the decision in this case must follow that authority.
If the law in the Swan Case is to be retracted, it must be retracted by the court bf appeals, and not by us.
The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.