Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/352

 340 FEDERAL REPORTER. �to wind up the Company, after which, on the thirteenth day of December, 1873, its directors, by the sanction of the com- missioner and deoree of the court, conveyed and delivered the assets of said company to the Mound City Life Insurance Company, a Missouri corporation, in consideration of a cove- nant on its part that it would re-insure ail outstanding risks and pay ail liabilities of said St. Louis Mutual Life Insur- ance Company; and likewise redeem and take up said stock by delivering a like amount of its own stock to the owners, with a right on their part, at any time within one year from the date of said contra et of re-insurance, to return said new stock to the Mound City, and receive from it the par value ; ail of which is alleged to have been done by the defendants, and that defendants received from the Mound City the par , value of their stock, which was paid to them out of the assets received of the St. Louis Mutual Life Insurance Company under this contract of re-insuranee. The Mound City Life Insurance Company became insolvent, and was unable to keep its agreements of re-insuranee, in consequence of which both eompanies have been declared insolvent by proceedings in the state court, and are now in the hands of their respect- ive receivers, and being wound up under the Missouri law. It is further alleged that the contract of re-insurance was fraudulent and void, and that the money of the St. Louis Mutual Life Insurance Company in the hands of the Mound City was charged with a trust in favor of the plaintiffs, and that the defendants fraudulently agreed to this arrangement 80 as to be able to realize par for their stock, which was worthless, and should in equity account to plaintiffs for the amount received from the Mound City. �Robt. Crawford, for plaintiffs. �Chire, Jamison de Day, for defendants. �Teeat, D. J. The demurrer in this case is both general and special. By the terms of the bill it appears that the varions Insurance eompanies named are in the hands of receivers duly appointed by a state court of competent juris- diction, and that their affairs are in the course of judicial administration. If the allegations of the bill are true, as ��� �