Provident Relief Ass'n v. Vernon

• Decision Date: 02 May 1927
• Docket Number: No. 4547.,4547.
• Citation: 57 App. DC 235,19 F.2d 709
• Parties: PROVIDENT RELIEF ASS'N et al. v. VERNON et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

57 App. DC 235, 19 F.2d 709 (1927)

PROVIDENT RELIEF ASS'N et al. v. VERNON et al.

No. 4547.

Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.

Submitted March 8, 1927.

Decided May 2, 1927.

W. B. Thomas, of Washington, D. C., for appellants.

W. G. Gardiner, of Washington, D. C., for appellees.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, ROBB, Associate Justice, and GRAHAM, Presiding Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.

MARTIN, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the lower court appointing receivers pendente lite for certain assets of the Provident Relief Association, a corporation.

The order in question was based upon the pleadings and exhibits. It appears that the Provident Relief Association is a corporation organized under the laws of the District of Columbia, as a life, health, and accident insurance company, with a capital stock of $25,000, consisting of 1,000 shares, of $25 each. Of these shares, 498 are held by the National Savings & Trust Company, a defendant below, as administrator de bonis non of the estate of John Brosnan, Sr., deceased; 4 are owned by one Thomas Bramhall; 1 by defendant Eunice V. Avery; and the remaining 497 shares stand upon the books of the company in the name of John Brosnan, Jr. The ownership of the latter shares, however, is claimed by the plaintiffs below, upon an averment that the title thereto had been assigned to them, but not transferred upon the records of the company. The entire stock accordingly was virtually held by the administrator of John Brosnan, Sr., and by the children of that decedent; the association, as well as this controversy, being confined to that family. Plaintiff Gardiner is attorney for his coplaintiffs, and whatever stock is held by him is held in the interest of his clients.

The association at one time did an extensive business in the District of Columbia and the state of Virginia, and acquired considerable assets, but since the year 1925 the stockholders have been engaged in continuous litigation with one another affecting the association, and its interests have been greatly prejudiced thereby. On May 15, 1926, the superintendent of insurance of the District of Columbia, acting under section 653, D. C. Code, suspended the license of the association to transact business within the District of Columbia, except to make collections of premiums upon old contracts in force; the reason assigned for this action by the superintendent of insurance being the impairment of the capital stock of the association, and the failure to make this good within the prescribed time after its discovery as a result of a recent examination.

On June 4, 1926, in the circuit court of the city of Richmond, state of Virginia, in a suit brought upon the relation of the commissioner of insurance against the association, it was found by the court that the association was insolvent, and its capital and reserve seriously impaired, wherefore the court ordered and decreed that the assets of the association found within the state of Virginia should be seized by the commissioner of insurance of the...