. ,FEDEltAL REPORTER. ,
<'i EAGER. l
I ',' ,
; ': .. :
',' :" ':«(Ji1'CUie iOo.U1'tj
, : , rofficers' Of'8 bought 'a tract c,f land 'COl'1 poratron. wIthout authority fr()]jt!the' dIrectors. Thetltle was ,made to B., who executed, it to,,A. to ,secure, Wm in' advances pf money 1;18 ,];tad a,lr\'l,ady "the anditfterwards made.for ,it. A. transf\'lr,r!'ld the' mottgages third '. B. s.upsequently . conveyed the land to the corpdtatl0Ii: '&ld, the trans!feree;havlllg paid full to, t9-J:l 'IUOttg8$es; and its properiy I'lliving passed hito of a.recelvert whO sold ,the land, the transferee,oftlie m.ortgaHes:waillentitled' to be first fund ,thu the
,BIGN ElE : ojj';
d" . ;
i .' ",,'
, In Equity.:
I.' 1\, :-;.
>iI:" :: .t'
" E. B... Qo:uJ,d,.fo:r " ,:' G. F. PriJ.chcU,. for defend!,l}t.,
';<"". ;: ;;>
'J. ;Tpis is a
of the WtesHPoint authority from the directors, tpe) JOf ['.qe.title in; the. naJ;lle pf tlJ' B. ,Eager. :; Jill' ,executed?,' the in. q"lls,ti.Qp.,to. B. Brown, advancing large l:llltpS for, and be !tooktnese :pll,yi,ng ,to purposejo£ml'1ng.lthem [C?P: thl;l associaticmd: He didadiVaneetlf !wg@ Wllqunt tion,whichhas: never been' ,the 'and pl0rk gages for value" and they afteJ;wal'ds, ,passeJl from, to the tlnt complainant.. ,Eager,. s.ubseqMlltJy W the title to theasS(I)ciation; ,and. by par,tje&.' took possessfuh :of the the,association r 9i those lands; been,Jlold;/l.Pd tPe:,fungS)I,reJpt};le hands , ofthe court.: The mortgages ,are all :regullg On a,SSQciation was and is indebted to: Bllown.largely in pi the aqJ.Qu,ni of these mortgages, so there was . I think. therefore; the mortgages shOUld be foreclosed; and,'/ls.t4e property has in fact been sold, the order will be for the payment of proceeds ;of the property,so far as is necessary, tl> the complainant: on the notes S\l:" cured by tbi) ,mortgages." : ' . ; '" d" i . , , " The creditors of the association claim a right to be heard in this matter, and insist that the case should not be disposed of without further testimony on their behalf. The order for the payment of money will therefore be stayed, if within 60 days they give bond or security, to be
ISee Poole v. West Point, etc., Ass'n, ante, 518.
by the clerk of this court, conditioned to: pay: any extra interest which may hereafteraccrlle,. and the costs of any subsequent testi, mony,if, after the taking of such a,nd the final hearing of the matter, itshiill appear that theil'plleglltions are unfounded.:
MUTUAL' RESERVE FUND
(Oircuit Oou.rt, E. D. Mis80Uri, E. D. April 5,1887.)
INSURANCE-LIFlll-DEATH OF APPLICANT BEFORE POLICY ISSUED.
Where an application for life insurance, and the policy issued thereon, both provided that the policy should not be in force until" signed by the officers of the association, and delivered to the applicant, " and the policy was made out after tlie applicant!s death; and, in ignorancetherebf, delivered at the place where he had resided, held, that it was void. In such cases unreasonable delay in acting upon the application does not operate to bind the. company to wllom the apphcation is lIlade, as in,sufer. (':
AcTUTG up'O'N ApPLICATION. .
In Equity. Demurrer to bill. George W. Tammg, for plaintiff. Wm. a. & James a. Jones, for defendant. BREWER, J., (oraUy.) This is a suit ona policy of insurance.,. The a:pplicatiopand the p91icyeach contained this stipulation this policy is not to be in force until it has been signed by the officers of the association and delivered to the applicant." The application was' made in November, and the examination before the vhysician had oh December 4th. Through some delay, the application did not rea,ch New York city until December 18th. It was examined and approved December 21st, and on December 22d the policy was prepared and sEmt to St. here on the 25th, and then, by messenger, it was sent to the place where the applicant had resided. On the 21st, the very day the application was acted upon in New York city, the cant died suddenly; so that at the time the policy was prepared, and long before it was received in this city or delivered, tbe applicant for insurance was dead. By the terms of both the application and the policy, it never became an operative contract. The case comes within the rrile laid down in a suit decided by me last fall against this same insurance company. Kohen v. Life A8s'n, 28 Fed. Rep. 705. The plaintiff, however, insists that there was delay-culpable delayon the part of the insurance company in acting upon the application. The application and examination were completed, as I stated; on ber FOT some reason the application did not reltch New York city until December 18th. Concede that there was unreasonable delay, and yet I do not see how any delay makes a contract in the face of the stipuv.30F.no.8-35
lation.. If the applicant wnsdissatisfied, and the delay unreasonable, he could have recovered the money which he had paid.. WhUe teceipt of the cast a moral duty upon the com· pany to act promptly, yetdela.y does not operate in the same way as an acceptance of the application. Suppose the company had delayed acting for a year, could it be claimed that the policy was in force? The propo· sition which the applicant made was for a policy to become operative when the instrument was executed and delivered. No negligence, no delay, reasonable or unreasonable, on the part of the insurance company. could make· a contract infa'oe ofthe stipulation. The decree will be entered for the defendant.
(Oircuit Oourt, Jj). D. Mf&ouri, Jj). D. April 19, 1887.)
EQ11ITY'-J'untSDtCTION-FRAUDULEN-r SALE-SUIT TO SET ASIDE.
In Equity. Demurrer to bill. \ Suit by creditors against M.Abrahl1JPs and S. Desberger, iu aid of attachment suits instituted .by them in this court, and still pending and untried. Krwm &:J01las, for complainants. . Martin, Laughlin&: Kern, for Abrahams. A fQr Desberger·.
BREWER, I., (oraUy.) tn thts case, attaching creditors levied their attachments upon a stock of goods.: A party claiming to be a purchaser interposed his claim in the provision of the state statute. The attaching creditors gave which preserved the goods in the hands of the officer, and the sale was ordered to be made. The attaching. creditor.!! now file this bill.' setting. up that the alleged purchase by this claimant was fraudulent and V"oid,andseeki:ng to have a decree of this court canceling the bill of sale: A demurrer is interposed. The fed· era! statutes contain this specific suit in equity can be maintained ifJa plain and adequate remedy at law. This provision of the feder81 .statutes is binding upon this court, no matter what may be the scope ,alldextent of statute. It seems to us that, in the proceeding instituted by this claimant at law, the question of the alleged invalidity of his purchase and the transfer can be fully