*1 . BENEFIT ASSOCIATION v. HOME SARGENT. 691
Opinion of the Court'.. ASSOCIATION BENEFIT THE COURTOF UNITED TO THE CIRCUIT FOR THE ERROR STATES DISTRICT OF NEW TORE. SOUTHERN Argued January 26, 1892. No. 1892. Decided 12, January 155. condition, provided -aas that death A of life insurance of the assured act, -voluntary by involuntary, hand or whether his 6wn sane or insane, by a risk not assumed at .the time was insurer.- A suit to sides) theory the amount of the was tried on the on both recover assured, a shot from a accident that death from fired thé Held, policy: was cóvéred witness, out the cross-examination of a Evidence drawn Which testimony bearing has a on the him on direct exami- n nation, competent, especially part relates to -a where conversation; same inquiry (2) An conversation was with what appear competent, subject does not is not if it was, proved by it; intended to be conversation what was evidence, (3) In of the of the of death and of the view contents plaintiff estopped' claiming that the death of the suicide, assured than and it hot otherwise would proper have been for the court put introduction the burden on the evidence, satisfy by preponderance hand; the assured died than his own otherwise answer, -(4) having alleged defendant in its the death excepted operation- assured due to a cause it was not error for the court to .the bound establish such-defence fevidence plaintiff. outweighing that of the The case is the opinion. Mr. Mr. Francis Lawton whom was- Austen O. Fox (with
n onthe for in error. brief)
Mr. Miron Winslow in error. of the court. delivered the opinion Mr. Justice Blatohford This is an action at in the Circuit Court law, United Hen- Tork, States for the Southern District New TERM,
' Opinion of tile Court. Home Massachusetts, í’ietta citizen P. against Sargent, association Benefit a life insurance incorporated Association, *2 with $5000, to the sum York, .State of recover the New life a insurance 15,1887, from March interest upon, policy Ed- on the life of 5, 1885, the defendant, issued September his the the who was Hall, Jr., for benefit of E. ward sister. of the life made an member the policy accepted conditions one the defendant. department By own the member by it was that. provided, or insane sane whether act, hand or involuntary, voluntary under not the at the was a risk assumed time,” the policy. in force on the complaint alleged died of New
19th when Hall at October, 1886, city of the causes death was not caused York, and any in of the- It was set up excepted policy. operation a death of Hall was answer, defence, brought that he died from imme- about his own act, hand fired hand, diate of a shot from effect him shot been fired with intention taking having own life.
The case was before Ooxe and Judge tried for for A motion rendered verdict for $5350. plaintiff denied, the' a new trial was made before and was Coxe, Judge 711; of the court thereon in 35 Fed. Rep. opinion being reported rendered in thereafter judgment plain- favor tiff $5350, costs, for with interest and the whole amounting has To review that the defendant. $5517.99. judgment, a writ of error. bill of after' By plaintiff exceptions appears direct a ver- case, the defendant moved the court to rested .her tq failed show dict on the it, ground that she ever had in accordance with it, pro- presented but death; of Hall’s visions evidence satisfactory denied The defendant excepted, court the motion. After it its then on evidence proceeded put part. her evidence rested, part, put rebutting BENEFIT ASSOCIATION Opinion of tlie Court. in further evidence.. It is not
then put that it all ; contains the bill evidence close of what does the de- it is forth at the set appear, to direct the defendant, moved the court a verdict for fendant the evidence showed that Hall died on the ground so, own hand. The court refused to do and the defendant excepted. are set forth ;(cid:127)
Parts of the court jury as to all other and it is stated that the court jury charged case in such manner that features exception fully of the court’s/ was taken and that the thereto, portions did bear on, which are not forth set anywise in the defendant’s to, or relate matters contained hereinafter referred to. charge, the instructions of the court' Among *3 this did is, “The the upon proof only following: quéstion is void. If he the did, Edward F. Hall commit suicide?. — — or assassination If he died some other accident way by the burden is issue, be otherwise. that upon would Upon of a fair proof the defendant to you by preponderance satisfy insur- of . . . When the truth of this defence. the that the or admissions pre- with evidence ance was introduced of the death miums given been.paid, proof had been evidence produced, the if no further assured, plaintiff.- the defendant but a verdict; would have been entitled under which the contract that comes into the court and asserts has been vio- but fulfilled, not been the action is has the onus defence, an affirmative lated the assured. Being by which, evidence by the defendant to you satisfy upon that the evidence plaintiff, the your outweighs judgment, that defence has been established.” introduced the defendant after that
The court, stating the to it plaintiff, furnished in evidence death proofs having produced the (cid:127)that insisted that defendant of death cause that the those saying estopped proofs, that such proofs there was not truly assigned, assigned while suicide death that Hall met asserted generally instructed mind, also aberration under temporary laboring TERM, 1891. C94 Opinion Court. were them to' that evidence for such proper jury, conclusive and were' evidence, but consider, means in' connection with other taken them testimony be such the main case, weight determining in the fit to them. see give as the might jury question instructed that court- burden that the upon was, first, being position met death intend- that Hall .hand, them to satisfy had a himself, right rely kill upon ing défendánt that fact; second, prove failure alleged that Hall’s1death it was asserted by might that and, third, and solely by accident; occasioned simply been have assassination; been result have that might there a failure on found part jury Hall committed suicide, (whether to prove mind, laboring.under insanity, temporary right or if found immaterial,) wholly being accident there' else, death was nothing a verdict plaintiff. must on the to the instruction that, defendant excepted (1) the burden Hall committed suicide not,- whether question evidence on the defendant satisfy jury of proof n that of their outwéighed judgment (2) to the suicide; death con- no means case, evidence were proper the submission to clusive; (3)'to assassination, died as result whether of' must be as satisfied the evidence .the *4 in fact truth the dispute. the counsel, the was summed' the case jury by
Before up the defendant the of the was done before charge, giving to the fifteen several written requests court presented in thé bill of aré inserted exceptions These jury. thereto, of the and statement after that in of the stated, to each requests, it is regard and as refused so charge except already charged,” court “ to each refusal charge. the defendant excepted in forth set are errors there twenty:five alleged Although BENEFIT ASSOCIATION 695- - court below, filed in the «s of errors yet, the assignment in error on a few relies of the we them, brief tó those thus relied on. our attention confine Brownell S. was examined Andrew as a One witness the timé he was examined, defendant. At February, directors, of its had been its he one 1888, secretary 1886, he December, behalf of- received, In the de- one John Sherman as' of the Moulton, .fendant, the case. testified that certain proofs had a conversation with said on that slight occasion Moul: that he death; of such (Brownell) ton on the subject cor- at them looked and said they incomplete, Moulton them; oner’s verdict did not accompany then, in a Brownell was it would be few days. said supplied “ defendant; Q. substance What asked to the in which Mr.' manner between you understanding mentioned between you"? met his that was Hall “ met his death his'inflict- : That he had answer was A. His verdict, must have coroner’s shot, and that we ing pistol it ;. in few came would be furnished which he said days then asked later.” Brownell plaintiff; a few days Mr. had known Q. that you to Mr. Moulton Did say you it that if well, California, you depended upon ? Did state that in you without delay loss should be paid ”? This conversation that conversation any subsequent irrelevant, but the was objected was; The answer allowed and the excepted. I such feeling A. I think that expressed personal “ Q. then, defendant: You. asked He was matter.” for Mr. Hall. feeling that you expressed personal say as to What was your obligations feeling defend- your the fact excluded in view of the risk ant, policy ? A. In view of self-inflicted policy wound being has been in the certificate pre- as shown of the company, . it; could here, against sented pay company man’s death the risk of a assume company Q. When wounds. you say self-inflicted shooting do mean you company, against *5 TERM, 696 decision ?' Against the com- managers A- the best interests of as to taken as a company, whole. pany terms I did mean mere settled of' business of the course company.” is contended defendant that. the declaration by to Moulton him, Brownell depended upon (Brownell,) without should loss and' paid any delay, irrelevant, error;- of it in admission evidence constituted But we think the evidence was admissible. Brownell was a witness defendant, and the evidence in question brought on his cross-examination. out stated on direct had that the substance of the examination between understanding time Moulton, him and the latter at.the a,s to the manner -which met his death, was met he his death á shot; inflicting pistol had n and the evidence drawn out on cross-exami- question, being had a nation, Brownell had bearing upon testimony on his direct examination, had Moulton implying that Hall met inflicting The evidence was to a shot.” same conversa- part think it relevant ; tion we and competent. Brqwnell direct On the examination of Mr. as a witness he was asked the defendant, substance a conversa- with one
tion which Charles Moulton, .or W. on November, an attorney 1886, occasion Moulton, when said behalf visited Brownell office of the defendant. The at the question objected as immaterial, and was excluded, the de- A sufficient answer to fendant this excepted. assignment that the bill of error is does not what state the sub- was, of the conversation or what was intended to be ject it. proved W. Moulton the father of
Charles John Sherman Moul- when' Brownell been ton. recalled Subsequently, had been defendant, Charles W. Moulton proved 'the 'was agent, repeated said Charles W. Moulton defendant Brownell he visited the latter make claim on the when BENEFIT ASSOCIATION v. SARGENT. Opinion the Court. *6 The ruled- inquiry $5000. again payment it not what the of the conversation stated
out, subject being to be of death was, what was proved. proofs sought after this conversa-' were furnished to the défendant alleged related to the cause or even if the conversation tion; and, in death, manner of Hall’s it could bind of to to make Moulton, absence any authority 'by statement on the subject. It of contended by constituted death, coroner’s an.admis- including'the inquest, to death his hand, sion that Hall came his by plaintiff that such to a- was sufficient create admission right legal the defendant to for it.' in have a verdict directed One of the that, to- in defendant’s her the defendant that the death stated having incumbent her a suicide, upon prove,-by pre- was mistaken and evidence,- the statement ponderance accident; that the death was the result another was of death been in that, having presented in matter, her her name, constituting must as to her stand her action, the essential preliminary must be taken made therein as and the acts, representations to have occurred until at least mistake was shown true, some in them. of this are
The facts case thus state- court to and there was exception E. Hall had ment It that Edward : be undisputed appears Francisco. He fre- lived about of his life.in San twenty years — — some- carried pistol. habitually, perhaps quently á under his He was time pillow. his during life-kept — plans man of hopeful making genial, temperament, sanguine — itBut also son. appears to the. future only proud from, had been suffering for a series years long — it created depression extent to such an severe headache melancholia. it as describes doctor so at times strong to his death prior It evening further, appears, Johnson, of Mr. residence at the friends he was with party witnesses, three complained of two and there, presence TERM, 698 intense his head, pain frequently suffering placing to his head and hands severe which he complaining pain circumstances of suffered. have not been pecuniary than the evidence here, disclosed borrowing is in that he of his sister. had a wife proof money son, son in and that he took interest great his future. college, I should call But is also attention to the proper your that at the moment fact wife ill seriously — — ill in distant city. thought hopelessly Upon of the 19th of at 139 East October, 1886, 21st morning street, this o’clock and between of that city, Y.30 morning, F. Hall was back Edward found hall-bedroom of the *7 with a wound in his fourth severe story, right temple. severe a wound was so that caused comminuted fracture of and and bone, the frontal fractures and' down radiating up backward from the hole sufficient, right temple, unques- his death. was found his He tionably, produce lying upon with bed' the clothes drawn under the .his limbs up armpits, no evidence of taken relaxed, any having struggle place, hand, within few inches near or near was right it, very shown in has been .pistol, probably, your presence, three of its with chambers was also found There discharged. or his stand .desk letter to his physician, substance upon that he has been with stating terribly headache, suffering he has had it several is days, growing worse has become unbearable.” wellnigh.
In the of- death furnished to proofs defendant, was this “Was the "signed question; deceased caused- hand or or acts,- consequence ” or in duel, violation of law ? was: Her answer to this any “ See statement coroner’s Dr. In the Jenkins.” physician, statement of Dr. Jenkins was this State the imme-' question: diat'e cause of death.” His answer was Shock from :. pene- shot; trating head mental wound (right temple); aberration chronic superinduced headache.” There ¡also this Jenkins “Was question Dr. the death deceased caused accelerated or ? his own hand or acts aggravated by “ I His answer was: examined the as coroner’s .only deceased BENEFIT ASSOCIATION to make am unable state- therefore physician, His mental than from the ment than other above, history. which was headache, due chronic condition was probably tumor of brain.” either chronic meningitis because of con- It for the defendant that, is contended of death, tents of estopped proofs than was caused otherwise sui- that Hall’s death claiming should have cide and at the court held ; least, the in- shifted, burden originally upon and it be- troduction of death, proofs of. her came preponderance duty satisfy jury, than own hand. evidence, that Hall died otherwise the statements But the was not prejudiced and the contained opinions (cid:127) matter law. "When as a thereby, estopped introduction by. court was asked to charge evidence was all shifted, of those the burden more full and than much before the complete n him- which Dr. opinion. Jenkins based testified as to and had witness, as a self had been examined time he'made certifi- or did not know at the he knew known, so far case, of the all the facts cate, and the contents in view of had been explained in the certifi- that most statements .death. appeared instructions' on hearsay. Jenkins were based cate of Dr. *8 been erro- would have therefore, asked for in that respect, neous. when all did the declarations
Nor ,to an admission amount taken necessarily together, Dr. Jenkins at facts, The committed suicide. in' the were facts, to time supposed have drawn there- might the defendant death; and, although to be scrutinized suicide, ought from conclusion they used as .an amounting to be are when they carefully sought The lan- was admission by'the plaintiff void. not inconsistent certificate used Jenkins guage by-Dr. in view of accident, especially with the of death by theory to whether as direct to the he came when fact, that . OCTOBER TERM, 1891. death was caused own hand or Hall’s acts, answered “ was it that he unable to- mate by stating state- any other than from above, ments than the state- history,” made that the ments he had immediate above cause being from “shock death” was penetrating shot; wound of mental aberration head (right temple); superinduced by The were headache.” a.t chronic jury entirely liberty prop- wound, find that that self-inflicted, although was acci- erly of death and the entire dental. evidence at Hall’s death left it doubt how caused, trial it was their verdict. to determine The court jury charged find that if should that Hall’s death they jury find for the should accident, There was no plaintiff. instruction, to that case was tried on the exception that that correct construction of the theory policy. of the defendant to was, 6th that if the request charge jury find that Hall shot himself should manner any except accident,” verdict; mere was entitled to a was, 10th failed to request give death was evidence that the and the 12th accidental; request that the defendant not bound to exclude was, theory every of accident. As to the of the court exceptions
(!) charge therein. we see no error It is contended that there was evidence which the could as an affirmative find, jury Hall died accident fact,'that or assassination. In regard as before this, remarked, the bill of does not all to set forth the case. evidence in was con- purport Hall’s death or assassination, ceded accident covered it, bill of and, evidence we think the warranted exceptions, finding fully that it was accident. The in its' having alleged answer Hall’s was due of the causes to one excepted error the court operation that bound to defendant was establish such defence evidence outweighing plaintiff.
We think the-court .in refused accord- properly ance with the made defendant, except *9 BENEFIT ASSOCIATION v. SARGENT. and that terms charged already already charged.; full now insisted correct, sufficiently particulars to have been erroneous.
Judgment affirmed. the facts Upon dissenting. Mr. Brown Justice have been should of the court I think opinion defendant. instructed return verdict