Guarantee Life Ins. Co. v. Evert

LIFE CO. INS. v. EVERT lants nished to Heights. sive to the issue vague, indefinite, sufficient that attention to brief a verdict which is vanced facts, look to the presented by port even said cause so ly mined the contention pleadings dence sufficient to vested their which whole defense We advanced Wedgworth these two contentions special worth at “We, “Defendants “Granted. And which said In connection with these contentions Many [1, 2] In presented, upon intelligible verdict: judgment while the contention of though that issue the insist that announcing pleadings different it must judgment; the issue jury, trial authorities issue. purchase basis instruction, real money all, was jury, defendants the absence of a statement called the evidence be evidence issues submitted, judge read as a loan but was sent hereby request must estate. jury. the plaintiff must be find that the jui’y and uncertain was not presented the familiar doctrines that opinion an interest in support unintelligible presumed jury presented, therefor request the follow usurious filed J. E. certain verdict upon It will be in aid of the H.R. having returned the $1,500 originally judgment cited done, special fact, the SI.500 was Davis, request light the verdict return were loaned to the court cannot Wedgworth himto undisputed. was was the sum of contention loan there Buck, agreement by verdict; presented lots in substantially will not error to furnish admitted issues.” really Foreman.” defendants’ marked defendants be noted appellant’s must rendered; sufficient Judge.” was then writing respon- conveyed follow- was advanced verdict 605.] verdict Wedg appel- submit Frisco deter issue thus sup- fall. was fur- evi $3,- too ad no were should have was thereafter the fendants desired the refusal of the court to submit them. ing in the an plaintiff by the sum was furnished to Smith to be invested in the support tiff’s ute Smith the sum same, and, linson, 169 S. W. 217. voked ferred clearly insufficient to show that insured false that at that convention her. with cancer of cellation of the vendor’s full her did (Court tions —Evidence. GUARANTEE LIFE tions —Evidence. [Ed. Note.—For other BUCK, J., Insubance Insurance presumed agreement by Wedgworth requiring controlling title, Evidence, In an not influence hence, adjudication answers to are in no April supplemental Dig. judgment of Civil there show to Mrs. them. See T. & P. already record action §§ hearing, verify collateral that evidence allegations requested was the same to 1555, 1707-1728; that false answers made in the absence of <&wkey;665— <&wkey;665— in an action on a life to Appeals Mrs. issue in deeded to position is affirmed. not material to the risk and on life in the sitting. (No. 8167.) Wedgworth Fannie no stomach. of that verdict $3,000, petition. jury basis for the Wedgworth On realized the benefit of issuance' issues which the INS. of Texas. petition Life Policies lien Life R. the If the Motion for Re- to policy, to be verified was or whether or not submission plea adversely was introduced Smith, Wedgworth, 1915.) CO. complain pass Ry. property as a sustained, such a Wedgworth case. as a The failure knowingly Policies Dec. to v. EVERT. was waived Co. v. Tom jury for a cloud upon, plea Ft. loan Insurance, repay If there Dig. request, affected Worth. awas — plain show —Ac- upon must upon then stat they then can was held Ac- &wkey; the de in re re to † 178 by the terms were re- thews a life made insured insurance of the ceived 27, insurer Henry as bene- of which ficiary. B. Evert was named September policy 17th. filed Suit on the having died, The Evert insured presenting The first answer against col- to this suit stituted misrepresentations Hold, 28th. filed November late, and, judgment in his from a came too lect favor, urged. could not be appealed. has the defendant Insurance, cases, [Ed. Note.-—Por other see the court without The trial was &wkey;390J 1087, 1038; Cent. Dec. following jury, the trial aid of judge’s findings law, omitting Rehearing. On Motion for conclusions of of of fact and —@=>255 unnecessary repetition Insurance Life Policies Mis- representations. that,” expressions “I find with as such nearly begins: Say 1914, Ann. art. les’ Civ. St. of fact sentence 4951, the fore- declared going which there not life shall policy mating a clause such “Findings of Fact. disputable premiums years less, provided after two policy “(1) insurance described The preced- paid. Article petition plaintiff’s company issued this, misrepresentations in ed declared that 1912, insuring July 31, life of application policy, validity should not affect $1,000, William H. payable the sum Matthews material, unless while beneficiary. plaintiff as defense, insurer, unless within hibited “(2) William H. Matthews died The misrep- discovering a reasonable time after paid 11, 1913; having resentation, Acts on June to that payment ground. refused on that premiums policy had accrued all or become on said Leg. 22, by § 31st c. which the in- provides thereon. amended, poli- due surance law was that no “(3) policy insurance cy of life insurance shall be after Decem- issued procured faith, and provision taken ber and without himself to be at a time when believed shall the entire con- tract, be ums. in fact state health. was in a and that the after two insured, making “(4) incontestable, premi- nonpayment save for stated truth- section, appears for said answered and as article fully questions ma- that were expression mattex-s all omits the “after December risk, and all or matters ap- terial 1909.” 68 of Section Acts of fully truthfully application pears or stated recovery not answered as article no declares that upon any material in said life because defeated any misrepresentation issuance of did not influence the the the policy. which is of The answers and statements made an immaterial fact and does not af- by resided that therein, notwithstanding he had and the risk effect that fect article to assumed. Held Decatur, amending No. applied route of 1909 act physician, thereafter, were no and, he had were the consulted unless only material, of said insured answers or statements any respect policy. were in not full or true. Insured avoid afilieted not then and had been with Insurance, [Ed. Note.—For other or of such na- disease of a serious nature Dig. 548; Dig. @=>255.] § Dec. desirability of said Mat- tui-e as thews as surance affect the @=>265 proper —Life Policies —Con- for life in- and suitable risk Warranty. struction — ; all the true facts had been ful- if A life contained a declar- ly truthfully insured in stated said should, investigation of such a full representa- in the absence of be deemed insurer, nothing facts had been tions and not warranties. A affecting the suita- been disclosed agreement contained in the recited bility as risk. an insurable said every statement, answer, that each and and If true relative to consultation of facts representation the insured was ma- physician by taking said Matthews and terial to and was warranted result of such consultation treatment aas untrue, to be should disclosed, fully the truth been thus stated void, except as otherwise in by knowing consultations, policy. particular Held while no form treatments, physical condition of the said necessary warranty, of words is yet, and to constitute a Matthews, which said consultations and in view of conflict between the had, nothing treatments were shown been application, representations as to im- way of a serious na- a disease material matters would not be construed as ture, as to material to the or of such nature and their would not avoid risk; relating consultations treatments said humanity, temporary ills commonto [Ed. Insurance, Note.—For other having insured had permanent effect. said serious Dig. 560; Dig. @=>265.] § fully where he had answered formerly resided, followed and this been Appeal Court, County; from District Wise investigation by nothing would have Judge. McKinsey, O. F. affecting desirability of been said disclosed by Henry Action B. Evert the Guar- Matthews for insurance. “(5) been affect- said Company. antee Life Insurance From a in said the diseases mentioned plaintiff, appeals. defendant application, ing time of the mak- and he was Affirmed. issuance said usually, good health, and be- Lane, Storey, Houston, Wolters & be, was, physically lieved himself to sound. fact appellant. Carswell, Decatur, E.R. McMurray Gettys, appel- “(6) compa- & life insurance ny, meaning within of article Revised lee. loss failed Statutes beneficiary amount due on said with- DUNKLIN, J. The Guarantee Life Insur demand made therefor. fifty Company dollars a reasonable issued to One hundred and ance William I-I. Mat- Digests Key-Numbered @=>For in all Indexes eases see same ana KEY-NUMBER LIFE INS. CO. v. EVERT ' half not take effect until the first and the presence. ments, issued thereon shall be null beginning, except ly provided tween the above that and gency Insurance each and attorney’s plete, health were false the insured read and said action taken thereon no such statements shall be used to this deemed representations the amount statute, attorney’s written me or under days, utes for the collection of said answers; sentations, any respect, sentations had the induced to issue the am the recovery entitled to recover the claima and titled to recover vided following questions collection ed in written to the suit was that the statements made was ed pany having are the representations given and described rial representations, “Q. “It “I, Attached to and made a rendered July defendant.” risk good following stipulation: payable, application: each do representations statements, representations, questions, and those statements for in said appearing as Are or if either or written, or event on which said are material to this under this policy actually you adverse together required by every health of the insured.” and undersigned, representations fully that said Company, you And fee for parties, fee for the questions, I either or actually shall be indorsed $1,270, herein in favor “Conclusions of then and in such case believe I beneficiary failed further every contained the are the when issued. so said now conclude that the contains the entire to be understand of and each and all findings by as shall be otherwise and that the defendant was loss. with do further made. prosecuting the court that no loss, foregoing statements, contributing for the and I warrant and declare and about the store. yourself answers, statements, and and and therefor which made, conclude full, complete, life answers, statements, and answers, statements, do prosecution of this suit policy upon delivered were true. my said the $150, and fraudulent, as usually of them be be not full and com- answers; hereby certify per absence of unless it be contain- a total insurance' mentioned application, loss, making Among others, answers, statements, answers statements made direction and in said loss 4746, and a either and void from Raw. policy declare 'and following amount premium paid cent, the court as plaintiff against by me, Guarantee the defendant relative as defense during plaintiff defense made Revised recovery a reasonable n copy as aforesaid contract good health, or attached damages on suit on became $1,000 for in said and mate- any policy appear the belief physically within untrue misrepre was dat- and them, every of and express- of such the life follows: clause: contin I repre- him is state- Stat here com Rife pro and flicted with due my en be- sound? A. be- is I close of the his death. cancer of the nant some stomach trouble at least a a will live about thews to have been time there would have manifested hours while he was sick that time in until would have objective symptoms would manifest themselves.” trouble with Ms liver. back toward about out He was this time. produced would be discovered see or a he made time. or conditions duration of cancer Diseases of the stomach? A. No. Cancer ble. trouble was what tumor? liver, stomach, intended “for a ment of error proofs ing, insured, ing livered, Matthews, 1913. He identified a ing . this effect,” court’s Matthews untrue; plication, and mony shows death. He testified of cancer the first “I am familiar with the “I think the week Dr. J. W. Opposed to that person February, 1913, there, how it could have his last neighbors Joe he testified: a probably trouble, later June, found out that he liad a J.C. one proofs prescription were sent think attending years 1911-12, conclusively affected with cancer of the October, 1912, Boydstun, A. No.” his death symptom after and at the time those contentions a He year ago”; wife of the There been too well residing Yes. Parris attended malignant year. one illness the first next time Scott, (answer had cancer plaintiff, Evert, he was at the time of stomach stating of fact. running 1% and bowels. He also June, 1912, stomach, dated to his business are no insists with year.” staying Q. and made 3 visits began the last two I of the disease dated acquaintances testimony June that he treated him and made began Have the stomach. treated following ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to fifth part insured, June It was not and trouble I cancer of the January 27, in its when there was some Houston, prescription Along objective symptoms developed a treated alterative and tonic incipient growth symptoms, diagnosis. not certain of that because the disease September 30,1911, this further matter with him at store at health at It was proof being suspect any malig- paragraph company prior possible but bases director working 1912. Continu suspect time. Stomach malignant until witness, was the testi- policy incipiency. 1912, probably about stomach, named diseases Joe of Mrs. Rula the evidence during proofs him ever been witnesses did insured dur his before these testified as stated of the in- until knowingly McNeeley, some “appeared Ordinarily during about stomach; or caused Sycamore not know for Mat- death January stomach was de possibly there in his assign all hardly of his cancer each): before dated trou- some gave some later died dur * * this be- af- in It in 64:6 testimony of that he had not been afflicted with also the sured for several conditions, following agent Mann, named who solic- diseases L. L. the defendant’s bowels, ap- Abscess, procured wit: disease make disease of tibe ited plication kidneys, heart, question. disease of the application disease of the Practi- liver, And the cally testified, disease the stomach. in sub- those witnesses ques- healthy strong, also contained the stance, insured was doing pounds, tions man, weighing hard about 176 “Q. physician you day, apparently What last consult? work Decatur, Q. A. None. Present residence? through- physical health and sound condition Q. route 5. lived there? How exception with the A. All life.” cold, slight or bad attacks of biliousness foregoing state- insists work, and with his which did not interfere which was cine therefor. physician, ments that he had not consulted by taking always medi- relieved dis- that ease of the stomach or resided had never been affected Furthermore, intro- bowels, that he had the written duced route examining physician Moore, Dr. T. A. the usually July 25, 1912, on he then and for the defendant who at the time he made icy, the insured examined (to he himself health and believed application pol- by physically sound, undis- shown were each statements were attached puted false, and that each evidence to be by application insurance and considered company accepting risk. fluenced the In addition to the and Dr. Scott approving passing upon Dr. and Scott testimony Dr. Parris appears report application. this It from already to, the rec- referred and critical.exam- Dr. Moore made a careful ination of the insured and numerous testimony as follows: ord shows further Parris, sub- Dr. which was Proof of questions propounded him. One defendant, was introduced to the mitted propounded questions “Do reads: of the you so containing evidence, that he the statement and stomach find the functions of the Parris) (Dr. attendant the medical had been (Ab- organs to be normal? abdominal other two or of the deceased about advisor carefully palpated before an- must be domen was not “Mr. Matthews and further swering question.)” Dr. which Moore some three condition until aware of answered, “Tes.” testimony death,” before his months Dr. Parris did not will observed that It he Inge, and resided Denton who had of Dr. express the insured a definite county, Tex., practiced in Denton medicine with cancer of the stomach afflicted years. for 39 opinion being June, extent of such formerly Inge Dr. testified began suspect malignant a trouble that he county, part time in of the in Denton lived the town of the southwest witness sionally tes- time. But the force of about timony Denton, time in a of the and least, extent, some is weakened to county; portion begin to treat him the fact that he did profes- had attended some time about trouble until such January 11, 1879, January and year opinion express- 1912. The close ed July 13, of such the time 1902. At also on Scott, medical director of living 12 or 13 visits, about company, of the stom- that cancer defendant This witness of Denton. miles southwest have ach with which insured died would as follows: testified symptoms some stom- manifested caused him, prescribed Iall re- medicine for “I death, year a before his ach trouble at least that I the remedies member in reference prescribed It has been and tonics. ordinarily person aliments a so period I stomach, rheumatism, ease of diseases, paragraph or kindred fourth shown approved it, I would not have for the the record. Am. Nat. Ins. Co. v. Fawcett ** * reasons stated. answers (Civ. App.) 162 W. Roedel v. John approving claim misled into false, App. 584, which I He claim are as follows: Mut. Life Ins Hancock 176 Mo. gave negative question, ‘Have answer to the 160 S. W. 45. you also any ever of the stomach?’ had disease Sayles’ [3] Article Vernon’s Tex. Civ. gave negative question, answer to the you Stat., any reads: ‘Have ever had of disease the bowels?’ question, physi He answered ‘None’ cian ‘What brought upon “In all suits insurance contracts ” you last consult? or hereafter or contracted state, upon misrepre- no defense based Mann, testifying Mr. after that he wrote applications for, sentations made in or applicant’s answers con- to the obtaining seeming contract, the said tained in testified further valid, unless the defendant shall show on the trial discovering so within a reasonable time after follows: the gave myself questions: “I wrote the answers to the made, assured, living, it notice if ‘Q. Q. Present residence? A. route 5. or, dead, if to the owners or of beneficiaries long Plow All lived there? A. contract, tract or that it bound refused the con- life.’ knew that he had not lived there on policy: Provided, ninety days county route 5 Decatur in out of Wise all of Provided, also, shall be a reasonable time: just life. I knew his there, how had lived this article not be construed as to render county and knew he had lived in Archer misrepre- available as a defense immaterial county prior coming and in Denton to his to sentation, modify nor to in wise or affect my county, understanding this what the defendant in it was article 3096aa.” company wanted to know reply was the lo- By showing this statute the burden of cality of the state in which the had placed upon Appel- notice the defendant. being my it, That lived. idea about I told Mr. statute, invokes the lee of this wanted, and, Matthews that was what was knowing which, did, the facts about case, residence as under the record in this he in- down the wrote answer complete furnishes a sists appellant’s answer to way. apparent- Mr. was at time assignments. The statement of ly in the best health. had seen him fre- proof facts shows that quently of death of the ever since he first moved from here county, covering period probably signed by Archer Dr. Parris was furnished years up always two to that and he company about June appearance being to me of the very a man in the and the statement of facts fails to show that large, heavy best of health. He was a man, appearance, always company doing robust in no- * * * I his work. had been in the business tice to the it refused to be soliciting insurance for several at the bound the contract on account of the al- I took Mr. Matthews’ to ob- leged falsity physical of statements contained in ap- serve the condition and health of plicants. and observed Mr. Matthews’ condition for insurance. But the record good.” health believed it September 17, the suit was filed shows By Sayles’ Vernon’s transcript Tex. Civ. 1913. The further shows that de- provided Stat., that: original answer, pre- fendant’s senting amended “Any provision discussed, contract or was filed No- state, insurance issued contracted for in this transcript 28, 1913. The vember show does not provides that the statements original when the answer was filed nor contract, or in false, Ninety contents. from contract of its untrue or in favor proof Dr. Par- of the insured the insur of death the date of company. September 27, ance extend to ris By proof Dr. the acts of 1909 our insurance law was death were statements 108, p. amended. See Acts c. Ar attend- had been the Parris that he Sayles’ years; ticles 4741 and Tex. about 2 ant of act; stomach; Statutes, Civil are two sections of that of cancer of the died sured had symptom former section latter the disease the first section article 4741 it is appeared date about 1 already, And, that: proof. as noted opinion testified, in his Scott “No of life insurance shall be state, issued or delivered in this or be issued with cancer insured stomach by laws provisions company organized a life insurance years prior to his for about 1% state, the same shall contain unless related, circumstances * * Under substantially death. as follows. provision events, A “3. at all seem application, shall the entire contract alleged falsity based parties between and shall incontestable date, except not later than two irrespective fail, of the merits nonpayment premiums; surance of by and which may may not, option presented vision at the exception contain an company,_ the for violations appellant above. discussed policy relating conditions naval noted, is af- reasons military For the services time war. A“4. that all statements made firmed. be deem- Rehearing. Motion for warranties.” On

from its miums.” is the inal ment and 4948 Statutes, now called hearing, As will be date favor of the insured of Vernon’s we except noted cited in incontestable after quoted. nonpayment Our attention articles 4947 Texas one judg Civil orig pre- not affect the risks assumed.” insurance act of 1909 reads: which is of an immaterial fact and which does “No “No Article 4959 delivered any misrepresentation recovery upon any beginning portion of life insurance shall be issued reads: shall ever be defeated because December of section 22 of the accident or health 81st, 1909," etc. ments claimed accordingly, when plaintiff’s right should Appeals icies were issued. held that certain visions made pounded, issued contained in the and that there ble Supreme and, upon signments, also cites covery by cies statutes Court in Blackstone surance “The And also after two duly paid.” affirmed the insured for following: involved is strictly construed, provisions be held to be warranting Texas Civil a clause Co., had no Court concurred the recent decision him in that articles a former reason of such escaped but further policies holding 174 S. W. 821. years or to article to be to recover making application of the statements application answer of life insurance in Statutes, were not untrue untrue consideration of the as v. our notice. less, provided premiums policies did not warranties, foregoing Kansas 4947 to 4951 The truth of held that both of statements the cited in Court of with the warranties. should be tested to the two applications by 1909. which the trial questions pro City our of Vernon’s articles shall that case it which were statements statements that hold the state the briefs indisputa- Court of 'Contains Supreme Life In Appeals untrue; 4951) which court poli pro pol re following provision: to December date. of the act policies utes were ly tween should be effect vision tain the utes, regular be June contained in section effect 90 ments of article 4741 ture, adjourned Life Ins. cies of those utes in the omitted omitted had by reason of the fact cember Article 4741 omits indicates an intention adoption in at which the acts of 1909 was doubtless for the same Hence issued 31st, session of the in article 4742 provisions words the act of parties Co., supra, applicable March of 1909 case of Blackstone v. Kansas 1909. As noted already passed force; 1909.” Doubtless the omission of the codification of the contains after December after that in 1911. The same words are 13, Revised Statutes 1911 was should passed of article 4741. controversy 1909, 23, 1909 that all statements were should the entire Thirty-First policies that which are likewise date, of the issued after statutes in the words our while those stat- already, issued required the date thus apply only 31,1909, reason. The present contains issued the time of contract be Legislature “after De- controlling provisions June (4947 act took require- Legisla- passed, clear- poli- stat- stat- City con- McCORD JAMES CO. v. REA ties lation contained ments of the insured deemed plete, risk cember tractual quoted above. Mut. Life Ins. 22 tween the insurer and insured that which is most thing therein contained beginning, except provided are material to this swers or representations issued thereon shall Del. Co. v. surance, 30 L. troversy part of Nat. Life Ins. ments representations ambiguous, that construction will be of authorities surance and that if resentations made any respect, 4741 and even invoked the shows a articles 4741 and not be deemed taken thereon deemed sion is stipulation sured, “And I do further declare and “And do Aside ^[*] L. Ed. procuring the rejected affected insists that effect should be present every 15 Ann. stipulation Ins. Co. v. though the statements a ^[*] or if either or Raddin, act Ed. attached X further declare enforceable, too well 31, 1909, including Company, clearly in representations terms thereof at variance with those the contract of representations any policy representations specific agreement by 836, holding of said W. either shall, for the then and has cited Phœnix Mut. Life Ins. suit should be Cas. that this 1909 contains no limitation of to all of made me as aforesaid is favorable to the to the effect that 120 U. S. if a contract of insurance is the insured shall be deemed appellant here, and not agreement contained in the settled to need the citation warranties, answers, said the Guarantee Life Harris, 4959, quoted and warrant and declare conflict with the 100 Tex. 89 U. S. independent full, complete by the insured should Jeffries v. Economical execution, 11 L. R. null that an and such Cyc. be of them be untrue in such case 183, Sup. only. policy just quoted as aforesaid is rule. 26 Tex. Civ. thereupon.” statements otherwise signed by and void from the the one in con- issued after De- execution, considered not warranties. of article but should in article statements and agree that each those authori statements, (22 above. Those agreement and constitute full and com- insured, and, That Reppond given (N. S.) 981; of articles 101 S. W. any policy the state Wall.) expressly stipulation purpose adopted Ct. further hereby action provi- every- stipu state true; as a App. con rep- an- In- be be be v. made fraud, warranties, plication rule of construction be noted the use of the word “warrant” in connection void, ther more taken surance erwise and articles Ins. Co. v. Cobb sured, ed cluding language: therewith. Bills v. Hibernia agreement that, risk assumed ed, especially in connection with the further if ment would while the answer was not general tion was v. be Tex. 706, cal sary ed Execution er’s conclusion. that, in view of that stipulation, property, execution in ment creditor from plaintiff real (Court unlawfully levying upon fault. of Pleadek. [Ed. Note.—For [Ed. The motion for In other Stone, Pleading inwas untrue, give material to words representations, JAMES In a suit to party contrary &wkey;»205.] constituted a Dig. thereon of Civil Note.—For other provided in this be deemed demurrer, Am. Company.” 4741 and 49 Tex. 4. The effect to that that defendant had sought only 29 W. suit to in interest. the defendant’s answer set the sheriff’s default specific warranty then the §§ words, appellant judgment, which would be the hands McCORD St. was obtained 491— position form of 519-539; Dec. <&wkey;205 Answejr—Conclusion <&wkey;172 the entire Appeals May be Rep. enjoin permitted bad (No. 8176.) 493, 495, 496, 498-510; enjoin said the Guarantee Life (Civ. naught, rehearing is other application levying warranty “Except warranty.” Banking independent for the sheriff was not a ignore to claim that the company. were immaterial — contracts CO. v. expression App.) of Texas. Ft. 1915.) stating only all such stipulation Furthermore, qualified by favorable levy Injunction 29 L. agreement contain plain provisions and that an full, against plaintiff sheriff and a delay. to offset its on in the absence of shall exemption Washington as shall insists, placed sheriff, contrary 163 S. W. 608. REA representations Dig. under a property did not selling it was their truth overruled. R. Ins. of insurance the truth override be “No techni in the Held are neces Execution, &wkey;172.] et al. last a writ of null and Pleading, and not its con Co., be oth statutes not, (N. writ Worth. exempt — injunc- effect, insur action entitle plead- alleg quot judg- judg- Fire will fur De- Co. In- S.) oí Key-Numbered Digests cases see same in all KEY-NUMBER and Indexes lish those defenses. ment to the submission of the case to the cial the and referred to sustaining quest dor’s lien notes for the whether [4, proof plaintiff, issues; 5] We are of the the submission of sought or not request their face their above, request quoted plaintiff’s made to only escape $1,500 property purchased execution Appellants purported defendants to specifically pleaded any particular advanced clearly petition from the court that the issue above jury. relative misrepresentations, burden Smith The estab notes judg ven spe re defense based the able time non’s the 665.] surer shall show fused to be bound days tions —Defenses. [Ed. Note.—For other falsity proofs declares Sayles’ under the direct upon misrepresentations 1555, 1707-1728; &wkey;>390— Ann. Civ. St. considered a reasonable discovering on trial not avoid which showed Ann. actions allowed, Life Policies Civ. notice that within a see Insurance. _ falsity St. unless the and that 90 policies, art. made in reason- Ver- Ac- &wkey; art. re- Digests Key-Numbered other eases same and KEY-NUMBER in ^&wkey;Eor Indexes pending Court. Supreme † writ

Notes

and have notes such of his about half would live condition, do not remember case or diagnosis, discovered disease would were diagnosis. definitely that I remember as to the stomach, liver, opinions expert only, would not some suffered dropsical trouble, resulting effu- in a testinal opposed necessarily controlling when after, country I lost soon He left sion. testimony re- offered health, sight in bad of the case. Accordingly, appellant’s being pale, above. ferred to that he was him as remember during vigorous I knew him. assignment not * overruled. ** pre- time I a fact that the last It is appellant at

[2] different H. Matthews was about for W. scribed years ago, unsupported by tacks, have not seen since that contrary undisputed evidence, have not known the facts is also a fact of the condition time. It anything H. of health of W. paragraph of find recited the fourth years.” past reading fact, ings as follows: the further tes- also introduced insured, application making for in- “The Scott, timony the medical director of Dr. surance, tions and matters truthfully ques- and stated answered company, that were material to the fully or or matters not director of the Guarantee “I the medical am truthfully by him in or stated answered Company Houston, Tex. Life have application not material the risk and organi since medical been its director the issuance of did not influence years ago, and was the medical zation Life Insurance of said Guarantee Com director addition to the and answers" day July, pany on the 31st As application for insurance supervision have director department approv above, the insured further set stated medical Tes.) LIEE INS. CO. EVERT v. appointment and shall examiners render the of medical contract or void voida- ble, upon passing advising upon applications for insurance shall be of no shall not consti- desirability brought upon risks. tute defense to such suit contract, of material to application W. H. unless it be shown a trial there- disapprov approval misrepresented thing was al, matter or to me approved approved actually same. the risk contributed applicant contingency or event on which said payable, con became the doctor due and the examination made and whether was necessary application. material and be a tained in said have been so contributed in case my approval have before a of fact to be determined jury trying ,When I receiv court or issued Mr. Matthews. case.” application,' it over I read ed Mr. Matthews’ and considered it Inge The fact that Dr. Parris and Dr. carefully approved the both been because, my judgment, consulted the insured a number an from the same swers contained in the it a that ÍV. prior I considered of times to the date of the risk. If had disclosed undisputed. undisputed seems It is also physi H. Matthews had consulted applicant had not on lived rural route S application, I cians time he made passed investigated near Decatur his troubles and that he had accordingly. the case If had found trouble, had some stomach a mi- least of investigation, if the But, nor character. view the testi- shown, prior that W. H. Matthews had within mony making offered and noted above diseases, I stomach trouble or kindred rebuttal of offered approved for insurance on it cannot be false statements age; years account of his old. then necessarily thereto relative my ap old, A man 60 in order to obtain proval so far plication the been affected with record, were material have a to the risk of the must clear issuance of personal goes. health as his contrary, On the we are of the that, shortly prior to had disclosed opinion that there was evidence sufficient to date.thereof, said W. H. Matthews had bowels, any all the fact shown in the dis disease of the

Case Details

Case Name: Guarantee Life Ins. Co. v. Evert

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Apr 24, 1915

Citation: 178 S.W. 643

Docket Number: No. 8167.

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.