# Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Jones

> Supreme Court of Missouri · July 5, 1939 · 344 Mo. 932

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9866314

## Case

- **Full name:** Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, a Corporation; American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, a Corporation; Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Company, a Corporation; Hardware Mutual Casualty Company, a Corporation; Employers’ Mutual Indemnity Corporation, a Corporation; Paul C. Kinsey, Arnold M. Stephenson, Francis S. Mulholland, John M. Siebert and Glen E. Kohl, Appellants, v. E. W. Jones, General Chairman of Bar Committees of the State, and John C. Grover, Grover C. Sibley, Fielding P. Stapleton and H. E. Shepherd, Members of the Advisory Committee to the General Chairman of Bar Committees of the State
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Missouri
- **Decided:** July 5, 1939
- **Citations:** 344 Mo. 932; 130 S.W.2d 945; 125 A.L.R. 1149; 1939 Mo. LEXIS 689
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Ellison
- **Cited by:** 76 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9866314

## Opinion text

On Motion por Rehearing.
Respondents’ motion for rehearing and to modify the opinion raises two questions which call for brief discussion. It is charged that the opinion went to some length in upholding appellants’ right to challenge the constitutionality of Section 11692, supra,' and then failed to rule that question. We will say now that if the statute, and particularly the broad concluding part thereof as set out in paragraph II above, forbids the doing of the things permitted by the opinion, it is that far unconstitutional, as against Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution and Sections 4 and 30, Article II of. the Missouri Constitution. These are the provisions invoked in appellants’ petition. [See New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U. S. 262, 278 , 76 L. Ed. 947 , 52 Sup. Ct. 271.]
Complaint is further made that the evidence shows appellants failed to conduct their business in conformity with the • Code adopted by them in May, 1937; and that we erred in ruling to the contrary. On this'point we are cited to excerpts from the testimony of appellants’ witness Mulholland, where he said he settled claims “without advice.” But examination of the context shows he meant without advice from the home office, not without advice of counsel. At one place he was asked if he claimed the right under the Code to settle claims in the field “without intervention of counsel.” He answered in the affirmative, but ón the next page of the record he explained that before such settlements were made the claim reports had been received by the office attorney and he had conferred with him. The overwhelming evidence is that the Code was adhered to.
All concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9866314. Public record. Not legal advice.