Duggins v. Hunt, 7369.

• Decision Date: 22 October 1963
• Docket Number: No. 7369.,7369.
• Citation: 323 F.2d 746
• Parties: Ralph H. DUGGINS, Appellant, v. Joe B. HUNT, S-R Insurance Service Agency, Inc., a corporation, and Carr Insurance Agency, Inc., a corporation, Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

323 F.2d 746 (1963)

Ralph H. DUGGINS, Appellant, v. Joe B. HUNT, S-R Insurance Service Agency, Inc., a corporation, and Carr Insurance Agency, Inc., a corporation, Appellees.

No. 7369.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

October 22, 1963.

Clyde Linde, Kansas City, Mo. (Max G. Morgan, Oklahoma City, Okl., and Albert Thomson and Linde, Thomson, VanDyke, Fairchild & Langworthy, Kansas City, Mo., of counsel and on the brief), for appellant.

Edward R. Adwon and William G. Fisher, Oklahoma City, Okl. (Andrew J. Moore, Oklahoma City, Okl., and David Hudson, Muskogee, Okl., on the brief), for appellees.

Before LEWIS, HILL and SETH, Circuit Judges.

LEWIS, Circuit Judge.

Appellant is the Superintendent of Insurance of the State of Missouri and in such capacity was appointed by the state court of Missouri as receiver of Guaranty Insurance Exchange, an insolvent reciprocal insurance association organized and licensed under the laws of Missouri. The appellee Hunt is the Insurance Commissioner of the State of Oklahoma and in such capacity was appointed by the state court of Oklahoma as ancillary receiver of such insolvent insurer and was directed and ordered to take charge of and to administer the assets of the insurer within the state of Oklahoma. The other appellees are insurance agents of Guaranty Insurance Exchange within Oklahoma. By complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and naming the appellee as a defendant in his individual capacity, appellant sought declaratory relief pursuant to Title 28 U.S. C.A. § 2201, upon allegation that certain assets of the insolvent insurer existed within the State of Oklahoma consisting of agents' balances and unearned commissions which, by contract and the statutory provisions of the State of Missouri, constituted trust funds for the equal and proportionate benefit of all creditors of the insolvent insurer wherever located; that the appellee wrongfully exceeds his authority as an officer of the State of Oklahoma and as an officer of the state court of Oklahoma by claiming the right to collect and administer such assets under Oklahoma statutory law which "purportedly vests in the Ancillary Receiver the immediate right to recover agents' balances due an out-state insurer by its agents in the State of Oklahoma which statute was intended to apply only to agents' balances in the State of Oklahoma which are recoverable by the Ancillary Receiver without violating contract obligations protected by Article 1 Section (10) of the Federal Constitution and without violating other relevant provisions of the United States Constitution," and appellant sought to have the court determine and declare that all such assets should be exclusively administered by appellant and should be surrendered to him by appellees. The trial court dismissed the action, finding that it had jurisdiction of the action and the parties but that to exercise such jurisdiction "could, though not of necessity, create an unseemly conflict between the federal and state tribunals. The rights which plaintiff seeks to have declared in assets of the corporation can be fully treated within the state court, and of course, plaintiff's constitutional rights will be as fully protected in that tribunal as in this (federal) court." We believe the order of the district court to be fully sustainable.

The general purpose of the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2201, 2202, is to provide an...