In re People

Citation175 N.E. 120,255 N.Y. 433
PartiesIn re PEOPLE, by BEHA, Superintendent of Insurance. In re MOSCOW FIRE INS. CO. OF MOSCOW, RUSSIA. In re NORTHERN INS. CO. OF MOSCOW.
Decision Date10 February 1931
CourtNew York Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

In the matter of the application of the People, by James A. Beha, State Superintendent of Insurance, against the Moscow Fire Insurance Company of Moscow, Russia, and the Northern Insurance Company of Moscow. From orders of the Appellate Division, First Department (243 N. Y. S. 35, 229 App. Div. 637, 638), modifying and as modified affirming orders of the Special Term of the Supreme Court, dated September 10, 1929, directing the disposition of the surplus assets of the Moscow Fire Insurance Company of Moscow, Russia, and the Northern Insurance Company of Moscow, such companies appeal.

Reversed and rendered.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First department.

Frederick B. Campbell and Paul C. Whipp, both of New York City, for appellant Moscow Fire Ins. Co. of Moscow, Russia.

Paul Bonynge and Daniel A. Dorsey, both of New York City, for appellant Northern Ins. Co. of Moscow.

James F. Donnelly, Alfred C. Bennett, John M. Downes, and Clarence C. Fowler, all of New York City, for respondent Superintendent of Insurance.

John J. Bennett, Jr., Atty. Gen. (Joseph C. H. Flynn, Deputy Atty. Gen., of counsel), for the People.

PER CURIAM.

The situation of these appellants differs from that of the First Russian Insurance Company and the Russian Reinsurance Company of Petrograd (255 N. Y. 415, 175 N. E. 114) in that the corporations are no longer represented by a quorum of the directors.

The Moscow Fire Insurance Company of Moscow, Russia, is left with but one director, and the Northern Insurance Company of Moscow with two.

Directors less than a quorum may be treated as conservators of the property of their companies when there are assets within the state that might otherwise be lost. Severnoe Securities Corporation v. London & Lancashire Ins. Co., 255 N. Y. 120, 174 N. E. 299. Even so, a court of equity will exercise a measure of discretion before surrendering possession to claimants whose powers and duties are born of an emergency.

Delivery of the assets to directors not constituting a quorum should be conditioned upon the execution of a surety company bond to the people of the state, in a sum equal to the value of the assets so delivered, with a condition to the effect that the director or directors shall faithfully apply the assets to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • United States v. Bank of New York & Trust Co.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • May 20, 1935
    ......On August 11, 1931, the New York Supreme Court, acting in accordance with a decision of the New York Court of Appeals (see In re People, by Beha In re Moscow Fire Insurance Co. of Moscow, Russia, 255 N. Y. 433, 175 N. E. 120), ordered the deposit now in controversy made in the defendant bank. Rather extensive liquidation proceedings have been conducted in the New York courts which it will now serve no good purpose to relate in ......
  • Moscow Fire Ins. Co. v. Bank of New York & Trust Co.
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • April 11, 1939
    ...... statutes of this State, though, as we have said in other cases, at their own domicile their existence was terminated and their property confiscated by decree of a ‘governmental establishment which actually governs, which is able to enforce its claims by military force and is obeyed by the people over whom it rules.’ Russian Reinsurance Co. v. Stoddard, 240 N.Y. 149, 158, 147 N.E. 703, 705. Such a corporation was actually and effectively dead in Russia. It was legally dead in countries where the Soviet Republic was recognized, and since recognition ‘is retroactive in effect and ......
  • United States v. President & Directors of the Manhattan Co.
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • January 11, 1938
    ...with the court a duly approved surety bond in a penalty equal to the sum to be delivered. Matter of People, by Beha (Northern Ins. Co.), 255 N.Y. 433, 175 N.E. 120. Such conservators, being unwilling to act, before accepting any funds undertook, on May 6, 1932, to execute and deliver to the......
  • United States v. Bank of New York Trust Co Same v. President and Directors of Manhattan Co Same v. Pink 8212 197
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 6, 1936
    ......But the court took the view that after the liquidator had made provision for the payment of claims already filed, the surplus then remaining 'should be paid to the corporations, represented by directors, a quorum of the board.' People, by Beha, v. Russian Reinsurance Co., 255 N.Y. 415, 420 424, 175 N.E. 114, 117. .           The Moscow Fire Insurance Company, however, had been left with but one director; and although he might be treated as a 'conservator' of the property of his company when there were assets within the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT