Hamilton v. Chouteau, 6 F. 339

Hamilton v. Chouteau

6 F. 339 | U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri | 1881

Treat, D. J.

The demurrer in this case is both general and special. By the terms of the bill it appears that the various insurance companies named are in the bands of receivers duly appointed by a state court of competent jurisdiction, and that their affairs are in the course of judicial administration. If the allegations of the bill are true, as *341confessed by demurrer, said receivers are the proper parties to receive whatever may be duo by defendants, so that the same may be distributed pro rata among the creditors. Undoubtedly, if such a fraudulent scheme existed, as is charged, whereby the parties defendant, for their own private gain, caused the plaintiff and other policy holders to be defrauded of their lawful demands, said defendants should, in a proper proceeding, be compelled to refund for the common benefit. It must be observed, however, that the bill, even in that view, is fatally defective, except on one hypothesis, imperfectly presented. The defendants, it is charged, were respectively stockholders in the St. Louis Mutual Life Insurance Company. Each held a different number of shares. It nowhere appears that said stock was not fully paid up, and consequently that the stockholders were liable for the debts of the company. It is alleged, however, that all the assets of said company were, with their connivance, etc., transferred to the Mound Mutual Company, of whose shares of stock they were to receive a like number to those held in the St. Louis Mutual, subject to be paid off at par by the Mound Mutual; that those shares were so paid off, and the defendants became the respective beneficiaries thereof; and that the only and main source of payment was from the St. Louis Mutual. Practically, the insolvent St. Louis Mutual, through the fraud charged, secured to these conniving stockholders full pay at par for their worthless stock out of the assets which should have been devoted to the payment of its debts.

It is not doubted that under sufficient averments in a proper state of such a case equity would lay its hands upon funds thus fraudulently acquired, and apply them for the benefit of honest creditors. But it is averred that the St. Louis Mutual is now, and has been for years, in the hands of a competent receiver, who is proceeding to collect and administer its assets for the benefit of all creditors. Why, then, should this court (the receiver being no party) undertake to collect and administer a fragment of the assets? Will a chancery court split assets and demands to the extent of upholding as many suits as there may be creditors or items *342of assets ? Instead of avoiding thereby it -would indefinitely create a multiplicity of suits. If this court took charge of this suit it would be compelled to bring in all the parties and take 'custody of the assets in order that each creditor might receive his pro rata; for equality is equity.

The grave question as to jurisdiction remains with reference to the citizenship of the parties. This subject has been considered in several cases this term, and all that need be added now is that the bill is fatally defective.

The demurrer is sustained.