O'Malley v. Lamb

Decision Date25 February 1938
Docket Number35426
CitationO'Malley v. Lamb, 342 Mo. 171, 113 S.W.2d 810 (Mo. 1938)
PartiesR. E. O'Malley, Superintendent of the Insurance Department of the State, Appellant, v. Gilbert Lamb
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Osage Circuit Court; Hon. R. A. Breuer, Judge.

Affirmed.

Roy McKittrick, Attorney General, Drake Watson and James L. HornBostel, Assistant Attorneys General for appellant.

The Circuit Court of Osage County erred in rendering a judgment dismissing the cause. 67 C. J., pp. 214, 215, secs. 356, 358; Hazard v. Wason, 25 N.W. 465, 152 Mass. 268; State ex rel. Scotland County v. Bacon, 18 S.W. 19 107 Mo. 634; Penfield v. Vaughan, 69 S.W. 303, 169 Mo. 375; Congregation B'Nai Abraham v. Samuel Arky, 20 S.W.2d 899, 323 Mo. 788.

L H. Cook and H. P. Lauf for respondent.

Appeal should be dismissed for want of a sufficient abstract of the record. Rule 13, Sup. Ct.; Myrick v. Hamilton, 26 S.W.2d 1011; Wallace v. Libby, 231 Mo. 341; Barham v. Shelton, 221 Mo. 66; Pippert v. Cook, 203 S.W. 236; Ford v. Brokerage Co., 197 S.W. 339; St. Louis v. Young, 248 Mo. 347.

Douglas, J. All concur except Hays, C. J., absent.

OPINION
DOUGLAS

This is an action for money had and received for $ 29,329.35. In 1922 the then Superintendent of Insurance reduced insurance rates ten per cent. The companies brought a suit in the Circuit Court of Cole County to review the reduction order. During the period of the litigation, the companies collected the old rate under an agreement with the superintendent to return the ten per cent excess in event the reduction order was finally sustained. The reduction order was finally sustained by this court en banc on June 23, 1926. Aetna Insurance Company v. Hyde, 315 Mo. 113, 285 S.W. 651. Thereafter the companies made certain refunds to policyholders. The Superintendent of Insurance contending that the companies had not made complete refunds brought proceedings against them asking that they be required to pay into court, with interest, the excess premiums still in their hands unrefunded. The companies resisted this action. On final hearing thereof judgment was rendered against the companies for $ 2,748,265.62. The companies paid the amount of the judgment into the registry of the court and were finally discharged.

Thereafter the circuit court authorized Messrs. L. H. Cook and H. P Lauf, who had previously been appointed on December 14, 1934, as commissioners and custodians of the fund, to distribute the same to policyholders. It also appointed Mr. Gilbert Lamb, the respondent, as attorney for said commissioners and custodians.

Thereafter the court made certain allowance of fees out of the fund in court to Messrs. Cook, Lauf and Lamb. The Superintendent of Insurance resisted the making of such allowances and appealed therefrom to this court, contending that such allowances were illegal and void because made without jurisdiction. With this appeal pending and undetermined, the Superintendent of Insurance brought this suit against Mr. Lamb in the Circuit Court of Cole County to recover back $ 29,329.35 representing allowances of fees made to him out of the fund in question. It is apparent, without discussion, that the validity of the allowances to...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
7 cases
  • State ex rel. Lipic v. Flynn
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 13 December 1948
    ...Rep. 468; State ex rel. Burtrum v. Smith, 206 S.W.2d 558; State ex rel. Townsend v. Mueller, 330 Mo. 641, 51 S.W.2d 8; O'Malley v. Lamb, 342 Mo. 171, 113 S.W.2d 810; Way v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 29 S.W.2d 1067; Am. Jur., sec. 24, pp. 161, 162; 21 C.J.S., sec. 492, p. 745. (4) Relators are......
  • State ex rel. Kansas City v. Harris
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 14 June 1948
    ...the Annexation Case, which is still pending and which involves all the issues of and the parties to the injunction suit. O'Malley v. Lamb, 342 Mo. 171, 113 S.W.2d 810; Weisheyer v. Weisheyer, 14 S.W.2d 486; 1 "Abatement and Revival," sec. 17, p. 50; Art V, Sec. 4, Constitution of Missouri, ......
  • J. E. Blank, Inc. v. Lennox Land Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 20 July 1943
    ... ... 48, ... 298 N.W. 400, 135 A. L. R. 933; State ex rel. Townsend v ... Mueller, 330 Mo. 641, 51 S.W.2d 8; O'Malley v ... Lamb, 342 Mo. 171, 113 S.W.2d 810; State ex rel ... Banner Loan Co. v. Landwehr, 324 Mo. 1142, 27 S.W.2d 25; ... Peer v. Ashauer, 102 S.W.2d 764; ... ...
  • Cantrell v. City of Caruthersville
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 13 June 1949
    ... ... suit is pending between the same parties, involving the same ... subject matter. Weisheyer v. Weisheyer, 14 S.W.2d ... 486; O'Malley v. Lamb, 113 S.W.2d 810, 342 Mo ... 171; Mexico Refractories Co. v. Pignet's Estate, 161 ... S.W.2d 417 ...          Van ... Osdol, C ... ...
  • Get Started for Free