Skip to main content
· 1/6/1897

Barton v. International Fraternal Alliance

Citations

  • 85 Md. 14
  • 36 A. 658
  • 1897 Md. LEXIS 28

Syllabus

<p>Benefit Societies — Insolvency—Dissolution of Corporation — Injunction — Pleadings—Hearing on Bill and Answer — Admissions—Assessments.</p> <p>Apart from statutory authority, a Court of Equity has no power to dissolve a corporation, but the Court may grant an injunction against any special misconduct on the part of the officers of the corporation.</p> <p>When a cause is heard on bill and answer all well pleaded averments of the answer, whether responsive to the bill or in avoidance, are taken to be true. But when the bill alleges the insolvency of the defendant corporation, if the facts admitted in the answer establish that allegation, a mere denial of the insolvency, being the statement of an erroneous conclusion of law, will not avail.</p> <p>The Act of 1894, chap. 295, provides that in case of a fraternal benefit association operating on the lodge system, and making provision for sick or death benefits to its members, &c., the Insurance Commissioner shall commence an action to enjoin the association from carrying on its business in case it has failed to comply with the provisions of that Act, or has exceeded its powers, or is conducting the business fraudulently. The Act also provides that no injunction against any such association shall be granted by any Court, except upon such application. Held., that this Act does not prevent policyholders or others from applying for an injunction against such association in cases other than those mentioned in the Act where it is made the duty of the Insurance Commissioner to intervene, and that consequently policy-holders or creditors have the right to proceed against the association under the Act of 1894, chap. 263, in the event of its insolvency.</p> <p>The defendant was a benefit society granting insurance on lives on the mutual assessment plan, and making loans to its members, and was within the Act of 1894, chap. 295. Plaintiffs were holders of policies providing for sick and death benefits, and that in consideration

Judges: Boyd, Briscoe, Bryan, Fowler, McSherry, Roberts, Russum

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.