In re People (Northern Ins. Co.)
In the Matter of the Application of the People of the State of New York, by James A. Beha, as Superintendent of Insurance, Respondent, for an Order to Take Possession of the Property of the Northern Insurance Company of Moscow, Appellant. in the Matter of the Application of the People of the State of New York, by James A. Beha, as Superintendent of Insurance, Respondent, for an Order to Take Possession of the Property of the Moscow Fire Insurance Company of Moscow, Russia, Appellant
Subsequent history: aff'd sub nom. United States v. Bank of N.Y. & Trust Co., 296 U.S. 463 (1936). (read from the later opinion; check before relying)
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.
The situation of these appellants differs from that of the First Russian Insurance Company and the Russian Reinsurance Company of Petrograd, in that the corporations are no longer represented by a quorum of the directors.
The Moscow Fire Insurance Company of Moscow, Russia, is left with but one director, and the Northern Insurance Company of Moscow with two.
Directors less than a quorum may be treated as conservators of the property of their companies when there are assets within the State that might otherwise be lost (Severnoe Securities Corp.
v. London & Lancashire Ins. Co., 255 N. Y. 120 ). Even so, a court of equity will exercise a measure of discretion before surrendering possession to claimants whose powers and duties are born of an emergency.'’
Delivery of the assets to directors not constituting a quorum should be conditioned upon the execution of a surety company bond to the People of the State, in a sum equal to the value of the assets so delivered, with a condition to the effect that the director or directors shall faithfully apply the assets to the use of the corporation, its creditors and shareholders, the bond to be enforcible, in case of breach of the condition, by the corporation or by any creditor or shareholder affected thereby.
In the event of inability or failure to comply with, this condition, delivery may be made to a trust company in the city of New York as agent or depositary upon the stipulation of the insurance company and its conservators that the fund will not be withdrawn except upon the order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
*436 The orders of the Appellate Division and those of the Special Term should be reversed, and orders entered dissolving the injunction and directing the transfer or deposit of the surplus in accordance with this opinion.
The form of the order and of the bond prescribed thereby may be settled upon notice.
Card'ozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Lehman, Kellogg, 'O’Brien and Hubbs, JJ., concur.
Ordered accordingly.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 11 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court1
- U.S. Courts of Appeals1
- Federal District Courts1
- State Highest Courts5
- State Appellate Courts3
Relies on it most ⓘ
- United States v. Bank of New York & Trust Co.
- United States v. Bank of New York & Trust Co.
- Moscow Fire Insurance v. Bank of New York & Trust Co.
- United States v. President & Directors of Manhattan Co.
- Moscow Fire Insurance Co. v. Bank of New York & Trust Co.
- United States v. Bank of New York & Trust Co.
Most recent
- Moscow Fire Insurance Co. of Moscow v. Heckscher & Gottlieb
- Moscow Fire Insurance v. Bank of New York & Trust Co.
- Moscow Fire Insurance Co. v. Bank of New York & Trust Co.
- United States v. President & Directors of Manhattan Co.
- Moscow Fire Insurance v. Bank of New York & Trust Co.
- United States v. Bank of New York & Trust Co.
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.