State v. Denton

• Decision Date: 21 June 1910
• Citation: 129 S.W. 709,229 Mo. 187
• Parties: STATE ex rel. MINNESOTA MUT. LIFE INS. CO. v. DENTON, Judge, et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

129 S.W. 709

229 Mo. 187

STATE ex rel. MINNESOTA MUT. LIFE INS. CO. v. DENTON, Judge, et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

June 21, 1910.

1. ACCOUNT (§ 12)—EQUITY—JURISDICTION.

Equity has jurisdiction in a proper case to cause an accounting and to render judgment for the amount ascertained, but the money judgment must follow the accounting, and, where the conditions surrounding the case are such as to put the accounting beyond the reach of the court, it has no jurisdiction to render a money judgment.

2. PROHIBITION (§ 3)—ADEQUACY OF OTHER REMEDY.

While ordinarily an error committed in the rendering of a money judgment may be corrected on appeal, yet where the accounting that must be made before the action can be ascertained is of a character which the court has no power to make, and which will involve destruction of rights which cannot be restored, the remedy by appeal is ineffectual, and prohibition may be resorted to.

3. INSURANCE (§ 26)—FOREIGN COMPANIES— JURISDICTION OF COURTS.

Where a license to do business in the state has been granted to a foreign insurance company, the courts of the state have jurisdiction only to enforce performance of a contract made by the company, but they are without jurisdiction to ascertain the balance due an insured, ascertained only on an examination of the condition of the account with insured, together with accounts of all members of the company who have or who have had similar policies.

4. PLEADING (§ 214)—DEMURRER—EFFECT.

A demurrer to a pleading admits the facts pleaded but not the characterization of such facts which is only a conclusion.

5. INSURANCE (§ 26)—FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES—JURISDICTION—FRAUD.

That a foreign insurance company licensed to do business in the state has been guilty of fraud in the collection of assessments for the purpose of forcing assessment policy holders to lapse in their membership does not justify the court to take jurisdiction of a suit by a policy holder to recover the amount of excessive assessments

determined on an accounting of the rights of all holders of similar policies.

6. CORPORATIONS (§ 684)—FOREIGN COMPANIES —JURISDICTION.

Under the rule that equity will not decree what it cannot compel performance of, equity will not take jurisdiction of a suit against a foreign corporation to examine all its books and appoint a receiver if deemed proper to take possession of the assets of the corporation, and administer the same under the direction of the court, since it cannot enforce its orders.

7. INSURANCE (§ 26)—FOREIGN COMPANIES— JURISDICTION OF ACTIONS.

Where a court cannot render a money judgment against a foreign insurance company for the amount due a policy holder without an accounting which it is without jurisdiction to render, it has no jurisdiction of a suit by the policy holder.

8. DISCOVERY (§ 20)—JURISDICTION—DISCOVERY.

Where the discovery prayed for is only in aid of an accounting, and the court is without jurisdiction to render an accounting, the jurisdiction will not be sustained on the ground that the petition is in the nature of a bill for discovery.

9. RECEIVERS (§ 205)—FOREIGN RECEIVERS.

The recognition of a receiver appointed by a court of a sister state is only a matter of comity, and is not extended when the rights of a citizen will be injuriously affected.

In Banc. Prohibition by the State, on the relation of the Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Company against Charles A. Denton, Judge, and another. Writ awarded.

How, Butler & Mitchell, and Rosenberger, Taylor & Reed, for relator. Jno. H. Lucas and Fyke & Snider, for respondents.

VALLIANT, J.

Relator seeks a writ of prohibition to go against the judge of the circuit court of Henry county to prohibit him entertaining jurisdiction of a suit pending in that court wherein Herman P. Faris is plaintiff and this relator is defendant. That suit was begun by the filing of a petition in the name of the plaintiff for himself and all others similarly situated who might see fit to come in and share in the suit. The petition was in the nature of a bill in equity complaining of relator's alleged mismanagement of its business as a life insurance company, seeking judicial investigation of its affairs and the appointment of a receiver to conduct its business. On return of the summons the insurance company filed a demurrer to the petition assigning as one of the grounds therefor that the court had no jurisdiction of the cause stated in the petition, which demurrer was considered by the court and overruled, whereupon the insurance company as relator filed this suit in this court. The question of the jurisdiction of the circuit court arises out of the statements in the petition which are substantially as follows:

The Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Company is a corporation organized under the laws of Minnesota and domiciled at St. Paul in that state, engaged in the business of life insurance, extending into other states, Missouri among the others. The company was originally chartered to do the business of life insurance on the assessment plan; that is to say, on the death of one of its members an assessment was made on the surviving members, and out of the proceeds of such assessment the insurance on the life of the deceased member was paid. On becoming a member every one paid into the treasury a sum equal in dollars to the number of years of his age which went into what was called the "guarantee fund" to secure the payment of the assessments and to be used in case of necessity in payment of death benefits. While the company was doing business on that plan the plaintiff became a member and took out three policies on his life for $2,000 each, paid the fees and amount therefor at the time, and has ever since paid in due course all the assessments levied by the company. And so the company went on in its business for several years and accumulated in the guarantee fund $600,000. But afterwards in 1901 the company, whose original name was the Bankers' Life Association of Minnesota, changed its name to the Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Company of St. Paul, Minnesota, and changed its plan of doing business, ceased to issue policies on the assessment plan, and conducted its business thereafter as an old line life insurance company, and issued policies only on a level premium plan. After such change the company endeavored to induce all its old members to surrender their policies and to take policies on the level premium plan, and did succeed in inducing many, how many plaintiff does not know, but seeks a discovery thereof, to make such change. Still a considerable number of the assessment policy holders, among them the plaintiff, have refused to go into the new scheme, and have held on to their original policies and have continued to pay their assessments. But the ceasing to issue policies on the assessment plan and the inducing of a large number of holders of such policies to surrender theirs, has thrown a greater burden on those who have held their originals, in the way of increased assessments—that is to say, not only has the number of members under the assessment plan not increased, but it has diminished —yet the company still levies assessments on the remaining original members, not only to pay death benefits occurring in their number, but to pay death benefits on the lives of those who surrendered their assessment policies and took out policies on the level premium plan, although holders of the latter kind were not assessed to pay the death benefits when holders of assessment policies died. It is charged in the petition that this action on the part of the insurance company was done for the fraudulent purpose of forcing the assessment policy holders to lapse in their membership whereby the defendant would claim and keep the guarantee fund, whereas...