
    TAYLOR v. CHARTER OAK LIFE INSURANCE CO.
    
      N. Y. Common Pleas; Special Term,
    
    
      October, 1880.
    Insurance.—Rights oe Policy Holder.
    The holder of a lapsed policy cannot sustain action against the company.
    Mere suspicion of insolvency and abuse will not justify a policy holder in lapsing his policy.
    There is no trust relation between the policy holders of a mutual company and the company.
    An action in equity will not lie on such a theory.
    It is questionable whether a suit to wind up a foreign company, or to interfere with its affairs, can be maintained in this State.
    Demurrer to complaint.
    John Taylor and Eliza his wife brought this action against the defendant, a mutual life insurance company of the State of Connecticut, to declare the defendant trustee of the premiums paid, and of the other assets, and that the defendant is trustee for all persons holding policies in the corporation defendant; an account of all the doings of the defendant between the years 1865 and 1877 ; to obtain a'declaration of the court that the trusts be declared broken and terminated, and repayment to the plaintiffs of premiums paid and the earnings on the said policy. The suit was brought on behalf of plaintiffs and all others similarly situated. The policy lapsed in June, 1877. The plaintiffs sought to excuse this lapse by saying that in the month of June, 1877, they were informed of wrongful acts mentioned in the latter part of the complaint, by the defendant, and that the plaintiffs thereupon refused to pay their premiums. The acts objected to were certain investments of the defendant.
    
      W. J. Butler, for the plaintiffs.
    
      
      Charles B. Alexander and A. J. Vanderpoel, for the defendant.
   Beach, J.

I have serious doubt as to the jurisdiction of this court to entertain this action against the defendant, a foreign corporation.

The admitted fact that the policy had lapsed by the non-payment of premium, before the commencement of this suit, disposes of the plaintiffs claimed right of action for the recovery of premiums paid.

There was no trust between the parties, by virtue of the policy; and the relief demanded, based upon the existence of that relationship, cannot therefore be obtained.

Judgment for the defendant on demurrer, with costs.  