National Ben. Acc. Ass'n v. Murphy

• Decision Date: 29 September 1936
• Docket Number: 43229.
• Citation: National Ben. Acc. Ass'n v. Murphy, 222 Iowa 98, 269 N.W. 15 (Iowa 1936)
• Parties: NATIONAL BENEFIT ACC. ASS'N v. MURPHY, Commissioner of Insurance, et al.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

269 N.W. 15

222 Iowa 98

NATIONAL BENEFIT ACC. ASS'N v. MURPHY, Commissioner of Insurance, et al.

No. 43229.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

September 29, 1936

Appeal from District Court, Polk County; F. S. Shankland, Judge.

The appellee herein, petitioner in the court below, sued out a writ of certiorari in the district court of Polk county Iowa, directed to the appellants herein, respondents below on the ground that they were acting illegally in refusing to approve an amendment to its articles of incorporation. Upon a trial of the case, the trial court sustained the writ and held that the respondents acted illegally. From the decree and order entered by the trial court, the respondents appeal.

Modified and affirmed.

Edward L. O'Connor, Atty. Gen., and Lehan T. Ryan, Asst. Atty Gen., for appellants.

Ralph N. Lynch, of Des Moines, for appellee.

DONEGAN, Justice.

The plaintiff in this case was originally incorporated as an Iowa corporation under the name, Hawkeye Commercial Men's Association, in May, 1906, for the purpose of writing mutual accident insurance and funeral benefits on the assessment plan. In January, 1919, the corporation filed amended and substituted articles of incorporation which stated that the object of the corporation was to perfect and maintain a mutual accident insurance association upon the assessment plan, the provision in regard to writing funeral benefits being dropped. In 1926 renewal, amended, and substituted articles of incorporation were filed in which it was stated that the object of the corporation was to conduct the business of a mutual accident and health association upon the assessment plan. In January, 1927, these renewal, amended, and substituted articles were amended by changing the name from Hawkeye Commercial Men's Association to Hawkeye Business Men's Association, and again, in April, 1929, these renewal, amended, and substituted articles of incorporation were repealed and new articles adopted in lieu thereof, in which the name of the corporation was changed to National Benefit Accident Association. In article 2 of these new articles it was stated that the object of the corporation was to conduct the business of a mutual accident and health insurance association upon the assessment plan. Article 2 of the articles adopted in 1929 was repealed in January, 1935, and a new article 2 was substituted in lieu thereof, in which it was stated that, " The object of this Association shall be to conduct the business of a mutual association upon the assessment plan for the purpose of insuring the lives of individuals or furnishing benefits to the widows, heirs, orphans or legatees of deceased members, or insuring the health of persons, or furnishing accident indemnity." Pursuant to section 8688, Code of Iowa 1931, this last amendment was presented to the Commissioner of Insurance and Attorney General for their approval, which approval was refused, and thereafter the National Benefit Accident Association brought this action in certiorari, in the district court of Polk county, Iowa, alleging that, in so refusing to approve the said amendment to its articles of incorporation, the Commissioner of Insurance and Attorney General were acting illegally. Writ of certiorari was issued as prayed and thereafter the respondents, Commissioner of Insurance and Attorney General, filed a motion to quash such writ, which motion was overruled. Answer was then filed, trial was had to the court upon the issues presented, and the court entered a decree in favor of the petitioner, National Benefit Accident Association. From such decree, appeal has been taken to this court.

We are confronted at the outset with the claim of appellee that, this being a law action and the appellants having failed to state any errors relied upon for reversal, as required by rule 30 of this court, there is nothing before the court for its consideration. The appellants' brief and argument was prepared and filed prior to the going into effect of the present rule 30 of this court. However, under rule 30 as it existed at the time that such brief and argument was filed, the appellants were required to set out " the errors relied upon for reversal." A note attached to the rule fully explains what is meant by this provision, and this court has, on several occasions, called the attention of the bar to the necessity of a compliance with this rule, and, in some cases, where the violation of the rule was flagrant, this court has, upon motion of the appellee, dismissed the appeal. In other cases, where the rulings upon which a reversal is asked appear quite clearly and the propositions relied on are well stated, we have relaxed the rule. Nelson v. C. F. Adams Company, 179 Iowa 586, 161 N.W. 645; Jahr v. Steffen et al., 187 Iowa 168, 174 N.W. 109. Inasmuch as the rulings of the trial court that are here questioned have been quite fully presented to this court by the brief points and argument of the appellants and by brief and argument of the appellee, and the court can readily understand therefrom the real questions at issue; and, since these questions are of importance, not only to the litigants in this case, but also, in view of the decision we reach, may require the attention of the legislative branch of the state, in the absence of any motion by the appellee to dismiss the appeal, we deem it advisable to consider this appeal upon its merits.

The first proposition to which it is necessary to direct our attention is the contention of the appellants that certiorari is not the proper procedure by which to question the action of the appellants in refusing to approve the appellee's amendment to its articles of incorporation. This question was raised in the court below by the appellants' motion to quash the writ of certiorari, and the motion was overruled by the trial court. In Scripture v. Burns et al., 59 Iowa 70, 12 N.W. 760, 761, we said: " The proceeding by mandamus is intended to compel officers and others to act in the discharge of their duties and trusts imposed upon them. It is not designed to review their action when discretion may be exercised, or when it depends upon facts to be ascertained and determined by them."

In Davis v. District Court et al., 195 Iowa 688, 192 N.W. 852, 854, we said: " It is discretionary with the court whether a rule [for the production of documentary evidence] shall be entered, and, so far as the court confines its ruling within the discretion allowed by statute or it is merely erroneous, it is not subject to review in this court by an original proceeding in certiorari. [Citing cases.] If, however, the order goes beyond the discretion and authority of the court, and thereby becomes illegal, or the court exceeds its jurisdiction, it is subject to review by certiorari." (Citing cases.)

Appellants contend that because, in refusing to approve the amendment in question, they were exercising judicial powers as well as acting in an administrative capacity, their acts cannot be reviewed on certiorari. With this contention, we cannot agree. Even if the appellants be honest in their refusal to approve the amendment in question, and neither the appellee nor the court question their honesty in this matter, it is at least possible that they may have given a wrong interpretation to and made a wrong application of the law, and, in so doing, have deprived the appellee of a right to which it is entitled under the law. If this be true, the appellants are acting illegally, under our decisions, and the appellee's remedy for the wrong suffered is by a review under a writ of certiorari. Lloyd v. Ramsay, Secretary of State et al., 192 Iowa 103, 183 N.W. 333; Shearer v. Sayre, Mayor, 207 Iowa 203, 222 N.W. 445; State ex rel. Erdahl v. District Court, 189 Iowa 1167, 179 N.W. 442; Sullivan v. Robbins, 109 Iowa 235, 80 N.W. 340; Riley v. City of Des Moines et al., 203 Iowa 1240, 1241, 212 N.W. 716; Dunlop v. District Court et al., 214 Iowa 389, 239 N.W. 541. We find no error in the action of the district court in overruling the appellants' motion to quash the writ of certiorari.

The refusal of the appellants to approve the amendment to its articles of incorporation submitted to them by the appellee was based upon the ground that, while the appellee, under its original articles of incorporation adopted in 1906, had the right to write life insurance, this right was subsequently waived and lost by the appellee. It is conceded by the appellants that, at the time the original articles of incorporation were adopted in 1906, associations such as the appellee, which had the power to write funeral benefits, were authorized to write life insurance. In 1907 the following act, known as chapter 83 of the Acts of the Thirty-Second General Assembly, was enacted:

" Assessment Life Associations.

H. F. 48.

An act to provide a method whereby assessment life associations may be reincorporated as legal reserve life insurance companies.

(Additional to chapter seven (7) of title nine (IX) of the code.)

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Iowa:

Section 1. No life insurance company or association, other than fraternal beneficiary associations, which issues contracts, the performance of which is contingent upon the payment of assessments of call made upon its members, shall do business within this state except such companies or associations as are now authorized to do business within this state and which shall value their assessment policies or certificates of membership as yearly renewable term policies according to the standard of valuation of life insurance policies prescribed by the laws of this state.

Section 2. [Provided the method under which associations could reincorporate as legal reserve companies.]

Section 3. [Provided...