Manson, Application of
Decision Date | 29 September 1964 |
Citation | 130 N.W.2d 182,24 Wis.2d 673 |
Parties | Application of Charles MANSON, Commr. of Insurance, for authority to liquidate Market Mens Mut. Ins. Co., a Wis. corp. WISCONSIN MUTUAL INS. CO., Appellant, v. Charles MANSON, Commr. of Insurance of the State of Wisconsin, Liquidator, Respondent. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Wheeler, Van Sickle, Day & Goodman, Madison, for appellant.
Charne & Tehan, Milwaukee, for respondent.
The surplus notes which are the bases of the respective claims of appellant and respondent were executed pursuant to the authority of the Wisconsin Statutes 201.17(2), (1955). That subsection of the statute makes the acceptance of the terms imposed therein a condition for the issuance of surplus notes. Whether the notes issued pursuant to statute are presently payable depends upon the meeting of the conditions set forth in the statutes. Sec. 201.17(2) Stats. provides:
Two points set forth therein and which are incorporated into the terms set forth on the face of the notes are determinative of this case.
(1) No notes shall be paid in whole or in part without the prior approval of the commissioner of insurance.
(2) These notes shall not be a claim against the assets of the company, and the principal and interest shall be payable only from surplus over all liabilities.
The performance of the obligation or payment of a promissory note is essentially the satisfaction of a contractual obligation, and the terms of the contract control unless they are in violation of sound public policy (11 Am.Jur.2d 29). In this case the contract, the note, is framed in the very words of the Legislature's declaration of public policy as set forth in the statutes.
It is clear that the commissioner has not consented to the payment of the notes of Market Mens received by Wisconsin Mutual. He, in fact, is the party resisting the payment, as well he should, since the statute and the note make it clear that payment shall be made only out of surplus and not out of the assets. As was aptly stated in Re Mid-Continent Mutual Insurance Company (1945), 246 Wis. 460, 462, 17 N.W.2d 602,
'There was no such surplus out of which to pay them, else why liquidation?'
In the instant case there is admittedly no surplus. To allow the offset, as against the liquidator's claim, of the not yet matured note held by Wisconsin Mutual, would be the use of an asset (the obligation of Wisconsin Mutual to Market Mens) to satisfy the claim for payment of surplus notes held by Wisconsin Mutual.
The appellant herein contends that the statutory liquidation of an insurance company is...
To continue reading
Request your trial