ARK.] 'BULLION, RECEIVER v. POPE, RECEIVER. 959 RCLLIOK"; RECEIVER v. POPE, RECEIVER. 4-i423 OlYniion delivered June 29, 1936. • COURTS.—In § 5951, C...& , M. Dig., a special proceeding has been provided fin-, the purpose of which is the protection of the assets of insolvent insuran'ee organizations for the benefit of • creditors, stockholderi and oihers interested, which is an exclusive . • method provided for determining the solvency or insolvency of such companies;. so • a . receiver appointed in such case on the petition of the Attorney General is sufficient to justify the vacation of an order of the chancery , court appointing a receiver for the same company or a petition filed by one of the stockholders. APpear from Pulaski Chancery Court; Frank H. bo4ge, Chancelloi . ; affirmed. Miles Amsler, for appellant. Trieber c Popp:and Bather & Henry, for appellee. BAKER, J. The -proposition upon . this appeal is to test again an appointment of a receiver for an insolvent insurance company, which appointment was made by the chancery, court of Pulaski county. . On the 29th day of' May, 1936, R. K. Haxton, as it stockholder of the National Standard Life Insurance Company,.filed a petition in the Pulaski Chancery Court, asking for the appointment of a receiver. The complaint alleged, among other, things the insolvency of the corporation, and that a , receiver was necessary to preserve assets ,and to'carry on the business of the company until it could, refinance itself.
960 BULLIO1N; RECEIVER V. POPE, RECEIVER. [192 The comany'filed• an answer to this complaint and admitted the allegations thereof. Bruce Bullion was appointed receiver by order of the chandery court: • • On June 3, .1936, Walter. L. Pope was appointed receiver by order of the circuit court of Pulaski county, upon a petition filed by:the Attorney 'General, , after the Insurance • CommisSioner had certified -to him the fact of insolvency of the insurance: company, :the : cause being styled "State of .Arkansas.ex rel.., Carl Bailey v. National Standard Life Insurance Company." Pope made and filed his oath and bond as such receiver, and then filed in the chancery court a motion to discharge Bullion as receiver, and to dismiss the action pending in. the chancery court. To this motion a demurrer was interposed, and upon a hearing the chancery court vacated its order of May 29, appointing Brnce Bullion ; receiver. It is from this order that this appeal comes. The appellant ..COncedes 'the . effeet Of the . ' cases Of Franklin . ir.'Mann, '185 Ark. 993 . 50 S. W. (2d) . 606 and Walker .v. McMillen, 187,Ark. 586, ,(2d) .455, and that they. •.are decisive' of . the question 'presented : here, unless we are willing to overrule both . .of these decisions. . The . eaSe , cif F ainklin v Mann was tried in JUne of 1932 and:it was. there held : ." This is a. special, proceeding provided for by statute, , for the ; purpose, among other thing's, as We hai r e Said,' of' . protecting the intereSts of policyholders, .and the property of the COMpany." This special proceeding is authoried . by the 8th paragraph of : §• : 5951 of • CrawfOrd MoSes' : Digest: '• • • Withont qtoting Or • paraphrasing from the Case of Frain,klin v. Mann, supra, it may be said that the •holding is to the effect that a •special proceeding has been 'provided for, in the matter of insolvent instrance organizations.. The Purpose of this special prOceeding is for the protection of the assets of such . organizations'fOr the benefit of ereditors; . stockholders and others interested, and that' the 'Proceeding so provide& for 'is not only an exclusive method or 'process of determining the matter of solvency or insolvency of an insuranceorganization, and upon insolvency having 'been found, provision is made for the appointment of a receiver by the 'circuit court to
administer the estate of such insolvent organization. This same statute was considered in the case of Grand Lodge A. 0. U. W. v. Adair, 182 Ark. 684, 3.2 S. W. (2d) 430. We again pretermit a 'discussion of the authorities as they are reviewed in the last-cited case. Such discussion would be a repetition. The opinion in the case of Walker v. McMillen, supra, decided in 1933, followed . by the dissenting opinion, shows that there was a complete and thorough discussion, re-examination and reconsideration of all the matters that ate here argued upon the appeal in the instant case.. It will be of rio benefit to attempt a new discussion or thrash over the old straw. Perhaps, more chaff than grain would be found. Let it suffice to say the court has not changed or modified conclusions heretofore announced. The writer is not in full accord with the present or . former views as declared by these recent decisions. However, a special proceeding is in operation . whereby substantial justice will be done. The decree of the chancery court is affirmed. JOHNSON, C. J., and HUMPHREYS, J., dissent.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.