*1 the contention the defendants that We next consider question was beyond pleadings. presented This decree is However, the contention is without a new trial. merit the motion for plaintiffs the title of only determines an ease the decree On the record we defer title to fee. should to the ment and not findings the chancellor. except Hays, affirmed. All concur judgment absent. Fidelity Josephine McQueeny, Appellant, v. National
Herman Company, Corporation. Life 37210. 166 S. W. Insurance No. (2d) 461. Banc, 1942. Court en November Rehearing Denied, December 1942. *2 Raymond ap- Kimpton and Walter A. Naber, E. E. Carl
Edw. pellant. *3 Johns, E. Berger, & Morrison Byers R.
Morrison, Nugent, respondent. B.W. Cozad for
DALTON, upon C.—This is an action an insurance con- alleged tract. Defendant lapsed non-payment had for premiums, and that the extended insurance thereafter had terminated prior to the date of tried insured’s death. The cause was court, jury, judgment without aid of a was entered jurisdiction defendant. Plaintiff appealed. has have because We the amount sued for $7500. exceeds ‘‘ 27, 1923, designated Non-participating The dated a June Age 85, Life (Policy) payable Whole Endowment Premiums age 85,” McQueeny for $5000. until and insured life of James August 24, beneficiary. was named as died 1933, and this facts February 19, suit instituted 1938. The dispute party judgment each it contends .are entitled one-quarter the conceded Nine facts. annual on the and it lapsed non-payment then premiums.
Respondent claims the policy lapsed September 27, 1932. Re- spondent admits that then had cash surrender value of $1003, but after claims net deducting indebtedness (evidenced by August note dated from which deducted), actually unearned interest to had a net value available for term This insurance. carry amount was not sufficient to term insurance to of insured’s death. It is conceded a net value of required $108.73 would keep have been in force as term insurance from including August 24, to and days. a total of 331 first that, assuming contends lapse date of correct, indebtedness mentioned the policy actually are had a net value of $192.72. policy provided payment for the an level rate
premium of “during its continuance.” The reserve basis was stated to be “the Experience American Mortality Table o'f with interest at the rate of three one-half per per annum, cent modified plan.” term The consideration clause payment mentioned “the *5 advance of the Annual Premium Hundred Eighty One Seven and Dollars, legal comprising reserve the premium 60/100 term insurance for first policy year”; required “the further payment of like Twenty a amount on the day Seventh every of June in year during” thereafter continuance of contract. A table guarantee out, showing (1) or loan values was set cash surrender
value, insurance, (2) (3) non-participating paid-up paid-up specified terms, depending term insurance for upon the number years in force. The table fixed $970 ’ premiums cash surrender or loan years value of after nine paid paid. $1100 had been after had years’ premiums ten been ‘‘ guaranteed The policy equal stated: The values . are to the entire policy, reserve on an amount not than greater this less two and one-half per cent of the amount insured Due policy. beyond allowance will be made for payment premiums fractional completed policy years.”
Provision was made for automatic extended insurance and the term of such insurance such of this said to “be as the cash value policy, less indebtedness hereon will company, purchase to' the single net premium Experience the basis of American Table of Mortality per with at the rate of three and one-half per cent annum.” values, guaranteed
On parties agree basis of table that, years after paid, had been the cash surrender 91/4 or loan according value to the table be $1003. would This sum was in excess of required by the amount R. Sec. S. Mo. St. Ann., 5741, p. (interest Sec. per per at four cent with annum charge). surrender It is conceded that the cash 25% policy at the figured date of lapse, according assumed the statute on the face age amount of the as issued at 49 and carried years basis,” oh a $777.23. “net level would be 9% Appellant’s actuary assuming testified that was issued age years, for $5000 to the at premium annually, years and the premiums 9% September 27, 1932, that, calculating the reserve the American Experience Mortality per per Table cent interest annum 3% upon the policy (modified preliminary basis term basis), September 27, the reserve 1932 was more than cash polic}*- surrender or loan value stated in the tables. The witness said table “the o'f values indicates that calculation was made company upon year being year’s the basis the first one that, term calculating insurance” but the reserve on the same facts prior calculation, used in using his except premium the “net level year, basis” with reserve first the reserve on the policy on September 27, 1932 $1093.30. contends since the premium level legal year’s premium reserve on the first should be considered
and, fact, agreed to in the consideration clause which referred to the “comprising legal reserve and the year.” for term insurance for the first In support theory appellant further of this cross-examination of re- *6 required carry term that spondent’s actuary showed year age $63.60 thousand or per $12.66 for one at was insurance $187.60, $5000; from the of that deducted this amount year legal for the first $124.30; left a of reserve remainder that insurance, which per $110.85 $5000 was thousand or $22.17 general a of $13.45 of left balance deducted expenses. including re- record,
Appellant says that the evidence in merely the spondent’s represents “this $1.75 witness’ statement that reserve, reserve my opinion difference between the in is correct which of policy, actually stated in table this and the cash value values,” charge by actually taken established the surrender respondent only policy lapse the reserve Appellant says $1.75. further provisions “under the might charge defendant have taken a maximum surrender not per to exceed insurance, cent of the amount of it did not but 2% elect to so, lapse, do and in fact at the time took a surrender charge amount reserve.” argues that, $1.75, only since charge made surrender may this amount be deducted from the reserve value of appellant it figured contends should have been upon the net level premium basis.. then contends that, $1.75, if which it claims the policy
on its face shows was charge by the surrender deducted respondent, was deducted from the true and correct reserve value as indicated in the consideration clause of the policy (reserve year), on the first the cash value on $1091.55; 1932 was deducting from this sum the “$898.83, net by indebtedness of as claimed de- fendant by court,” found equity the net the insured $192.72; and that this sum was more than sufficient to keep the face of the policy in force as term insurance to' a date subsequent to insured’s death. Respondent, reply, contends assuming the a level rate policy and that insured was entitled ato reserve out of year’s premium, first as indicated by the clause, consideration and, assuming that the true correct reserve value of the at the years event, end $1093.30, then since 9% policy table shows a cash surrender or loan value $1003.00, shows respondent deducted or charge made surrender $90.30. The respondent points out that provided the guaranteed “equal values were entire reserve value on the less an greater amount than two and one-half per cent of the amount policy,” this and that permitted a surrender charge on this policy. $5000 Respondent says that either case the value up set in the tables requirements exceeded charge less than the and the surrender statute, supra, policy. cent per permitted
2% at a net cash surrender arrive apparent We it is that to think to the date policy in force keep the sufficient to legal squarely conflicting death, uses two of insured’s *7 the takes policy. Appellant the first the interpretations of terms legally correct is respondent’s witness thinks interpretation which reserve wrong) determines the (but appellant says is which legal the (this interpretation of the as policy $1004.75 value of year). From first terms reserve on the policy omits up the set cash value ($1004.75) appellant deducts the surrender $1003.00, figure which appellant but policy (agreed tables be the arrives at binding insured) appellant and so is contends not legal the charge. Appellant figures then $1.75 so-called surrender the what she contends is according to policy reserve of the value a, includes legal policy (therefore the terms interpretation correct the reserve value year) the first and determines reserve value for ($1093.30) lapse From this sum date of cash sur charge gets the surrender $1.75 deducts so-called figure over (which she contends controls the render value of $1091.55 she deducting indebtedness values) the the stated in table in appellant’s But if $192.72. at a arrives net surrender value determina legal policy the effect of terms terpretation legal interpretation respondent’s tion reserve is correct and value wrong, figure (from appellant deducted $1004.75 is which then the legal get charge) has no figure $1.75 the the surrender man to merely has set a straw Appellant up existence whatsoever. has the it after she sum of and has continued use arrive upon the it was obtained. wiped out basis which theory, value of (1) that the cash support her reserve level policy by figuring must on a net be determined charge, (2) deducting only a surrender basis and then values, controlling that is rather than the table of cites such value Company, Mo. Gooch v. Insurance Metropolitan Life (2d) 704, provisions two 706. In case the court refers to S. W. statute, supra, and one more of a in conflict with one statute, statute, that, than .the liberal and holds when with read therewith, provision of policy the statute nullified the conflict case left more favorable than statute. provision but by fixed applicable here. The net value tables required There is no exceeds minimum statute. conflict Any uncertainty language or indefiniteness of with with statute. charge or surrender made reference to amount of reserve amount of values, definite and the table of which show amount certain provide. the term it will "Whether the available for term insurance figured 1932 is with or without is more table of values year, first the statute, reserve value Bramble stated control. the values than favorable 746; (2d)W. 160 S. Co., 349 Mo. City Life Insurance Kansas v. 132 W. S. (Mo. App.), Co. Life Insurance States Legrand v. Central (2d) 1105. denial that “defendant’s contends further such sur when theory case is based liability in this suf was not taken, cash value the net charge render insurance to temporary extended carry ficient to liability on that, “having denied death,” and time of insured’s charge surrender should different it assert that a ground, cannot Lime Ash-Grove Appellant cites by it.” could have been taken or Company, 225 Surety Company v. Southern and Portland Cement shows 434, 441. think the record (2d)W. We App. 39 S. Mo. cash sur theory that the net liability denied tables) after policy, (according render value of the indebtedness, carry was not sufficient deduction The amount term insurance to the time of insured’s'death. *8 ex was it charge actually
surrender taken was not discussed nor pressly in in the The contention respondent’s policy. stated answer or is overruled. assuming of the that, next contends the admitted value by against the indebtedness it was less than claimed in
respondent, keep and the net balance sufficient to the policy was Ap- force extended the term insurance to date of insured’s death. says pellant “charged on interest in advance insured August 1, 1932, note for a time than longer period dated specified note”; in the and that the “insured was entitled to credit on policy lapsed the note at the time interest for such excessive charge determining policy.” in the cash value of the The execution $941.18, by insured, questioned, of the note in the but sum of is not charged appellant says the amount of advance interest the note and, effect, was excessive in that have been note should correctly $935.77. Respondent says the note the indebted- reflected ness, but concedes that in interest advance on the note from its date maturity 1933) to date of (August 1932 to June in the paid sum, sum o'f was principal included in the aind note, and, proceeds (from in view repayment of the loan the cash the policy lapse), value of upon its that the insured was entitled given was ($42.35) and credit for the “unearned previously interest paid maturity,” provided by date of the terms of the note. interest, It is agreed conceded that rate, earned at August September
the loan from 27’, 1932 (the assumed $8.82, lapse) date of principal that interest sum ($941.18) August 1, from 27, 1933, agreed, to June at rate question $51.06. was in dispute is, w'hat amount interest advance on the note $941.18, was included paid proceeds thereof? Was the amount excessive? contends $56.49, 27, 1933, advance on the note to June proceeds taken from the of the note and that this sum was excessive sum of required; since $51.06 was was entitled to a note, credit for said sum of $5.41 on addition to the conceded by unearned interest re given credit of spondent. appellant If correct, single available a net total premium for purchase 27, 1932, of term insurance on and the amount was keep sufficient in force as term September .26, insurance to days beyond two insured’s death. Additional facts must be stated.
The quarterly premium demanded 27,1932 as of paid date, not days nor within 31 thereafter, paid but was proceeds agree loan August 1, ment of 1932. The quarterly premium re claimed spondent to be September 27, 1932, due paid, although never an granted extension was 27,1932 until request. November insured’s ‘: policy provided granted security Cash loans will be the sole ou assignment proper any same at while time force, is in after paid have been three in cash for years, full greater than the cash surrender value (1) indicated in Column of the accompanying Table of Guaranteed Values, deducting therefrom all other indebtedness hereon Company. Interest shall be on such loans at the rate of six per annum, cent per payable in advance to the current end policy year, and annually thereafter; in advance if interest is not paid when due it shall be added the principal to' bear interest the same rate. .” agreement, The loan August dated stated “in provisions accordance with subject *9 to terms of” the Company day “said has this loaned and party advanced to the ... of part the second of sum Forty-One Nine Hundred and Dollars. party . . . 18/100 part hereby second acknowledges the receipt of such loan agrees and repay to the same ... as provided. hereinafter per Interest oh said loan at payable the rate of annum shall be 6% in advance from 1933, the date hereof the 27th day to of June and annually in advance thereafter . . . Repayment of said loan aforesaid, part, in or whole in as will parties entitle said party or part any second to a refund portion of unearned of interest previously paid maturity.” to date of It will agreement be noticed that the loan on its face does not any show that interest “advance on the note” was included in the that, principal shown, but states “Interest on said loan . . . shall payable be in advance from the date hereof day to 27th June, 1933, of Repayment . . . of said loan in whole or part . will entitle party said ... part second any to a refund portion unearned previously of interest maturity.” to date Respondent note, interest, deducted from unearned $941.18 is, the advance interest from the lapse (9-27-’32) assumed date of
to maturity of the note in the sum of (6-27-’33) $42.35, get to a net indebtedness of $898.83. This sum deducted from the cash value of the tables, shown left a net $1003, available on 1932 for the purchase of term 27, insurance only $104.17. support appellant’s
In theory respondent charged the in- year’s a full interest in August sured advance on the note of 1, (that is, longer period of time than to June specified in note) appellant offered evidence letter from respondent insured, August 1, 1932, to as follows: dated “Agreeable your request, to we have applied a new Loan of $941.18 on the above numbered covering following items:
Interest to 6-27-33 56.47 $ Qtr. Prem. due 6-27-32 49.71 Present Loan 835.00 $941.18 We enclose receipt quarterly for the also deducted and your Agreement old Loan cancelled, which we have copy Agreement.” new Loan Appellant, in argument, assumes that the word “interest” as used in this letter means “in interest advance on the new note.” The indicated, $56.47, amount year’s was sufficient pay to one full interest at, advance on August August 1932 $941.18 6% but the interest on only $941.18 $51.06, says the letter “to 6-27-33.” meaning If is correct as to the “interest,” the word appears error Re- of the letter. face spondent contends, effect, that the word “interest” as used letter means “all interest and included accrued 6-27-’33,” a prior loan to' only the date of the new loan “advance interest” on the new loan to since 6-27-’33; $8.82 earned a credit difference between 8-1-’32, $51.06 or (also given “re- would be the fund unearned of interest previously paid date'of ’’ maturity, for in the agreement. loan In support of this theory, objections over appellant’s evidence tended vary unambiguous the plain terms of written contract evi- note, denced permitted to show the records company with reference to loan said and to offer evidence *10 to the effect that prior the interest on the loan of had $835.00 for one interest 27, 1932; that advance $50.10 June paid been to note, 1932; that old thereon on became due
year June on old and interest oil due past the current note, out paid the new of execution of note to date interest, could item that the The witness said note. new 27, 1932, up to due from June interest past “into' due be divided from loan, and interest in advance (new) August 1st, and that money”; the same sum of 1933 on time on to June that August actually loan made whether the was immaterial it was event. the same money sum of was or 27th as the 1st June loan $941.18 request found that respondent The court 27, 1932 to from June $56.47 in the amount of contained interest already earned was 27, 1933; that “of this amount interest from cover in advance to August 1, paid 1932 and was 27, 1933”; proper that the credit unearned August 1, 1932 to June $42.35, “leaving net indebtedness interest included in note was the cash $898.83”; that this sum deducted policy of on the $104.17 which left the sum of stated in the Septem- the face amount of was sufficient to extend H, days August 1933. 27, 1932 ior 318 or until ber re the evidence Since contends the admission of it “tended explanatory letter was error because ferred to as note,” necessary to de it becomes vary express terms to’ as to question prior to a determination of the termine this issue Did advanced interest. whether the note contained excess terms vary respondent express tend to' offered evidence how the August The note did not show 1, 1932? of the note of amount thereof o'r how the proceeds thereof had been distributed of the note on the face nothing determined. There wás had been “charged in advance insured interest had show .. specified in the note.” The note longer period for a of time than advance, payable in should be on its face interest interest was included in any advanced but did not show that repay- state, in the event did o'f sum of note. It principal loan, interest “any previously ment of the unearned objected to maturity” refunded. The evidence to date of would be note,” vary but tended express terms of not “tend to did rep- indicated therein 'the ánd show to confirm note indebtedness, including resented the true amount 27, 1933. August 1932 tó June the note from advance on “interest” let- explanatory of the word as used evidence note, respondent executed the ter. insured executed “interest receipt proceeds. receint'for its The reference ámbiguous explanation. Thé letter failed open 6-27-’33” merely figured. It showed state what items interest proceeds paid ’$56.47” .. “Interest to 6-27-’33
481 in advance interest was all that note, it did not show sucb but evidence 8-l-’32, it amount to substantial nor did on the note dated overcharge included an excessive or amount of the note was that the evidence note.” The in of interest advance $5.41 “excess objected received. properly to was (of issue the main finding says the court’s pleadings unsupported by charge) excessive interest fully finding was the court’s opinion evidence. that We are allegation with supported by and did not conflict the evidence loan, said amount of principal respondent’s in that answer “the interest on 'said to-wit, pay. the a sum to $941.18 included sufficient answer did ours.) The day June, (Italics loan to 1933.” the 27th of the note. allege included in the face what other items were “ac “account stated” and by appellant authorities cited oil Quellmalz Mfg. & (Conklin Henry v. Lbr. and satisfaction” cord 566; Kent, 342 Company 564, v. (Mo. App.), (2d) Caneer S. W. 878, 216; Interstate Con (2d) 214, Mo. 119 W. McCormick v. S. 252; 201, 191, solidated 55 W. Rapid Company, 154 Mo. S. Transit 129, Quilty 109 Pac. Company, New York Life Ins. 153 Kan. v. (2d) 215, rather 219) respondent’s support position seem rather to correct, than that of appellant, apparently, since if respondent required the note insured to execute cover all Apparently, indebtedness condition reinstatement. agreed sum was be as of that sufficient to cover indebtedness date addition, 27, 1933; interest advance to the note face, its repayment, event of refund “any unearned previously paid of ma to date turity.” We find no conflict between the the note of in terms of sured and the receipt of proceeds for the thereof. There no substantial charge evidence that an excessive of interest advance on the note had been made or that was entitled credit claimed. Neither the letter nor note that shows such an overcharge had been made. claim for such a credit .d must be refuse Appellant next contends that was not effective July 1923, until 19, the date on which paid and the policy delivered; lapsed that years thereafter, on 9% October 1932; figuring the value of on said date and deducting the indebtedness, correct the net cash value was sufficient keep' beyond in force as term insurance ato date insured’s Appellant says death. the effective date of the policy fixed the premium dates; paying that the first annual premium $187.60 year one whole July insurance from 1923; no paying premiums 27th, as of June year, each nor course dealing recognition or of June 27th as paying annual date, could establish a construction at with variance the nlain terms basis, unless policy. Respondent says such a even alleged in- excess interest claim is deducted days) debtedness, (almost the net value of lacked 94 cents being keep sufficient to the extended insurance in force to date of insured’s death.
Appellant’s actuary testified effective assuming the July $5000 91/4 paid, $1003, computing and the had cash value of *12 1, August policy the earned interest on the $941.18 loan of deducting to October this of earned deducting $56.47 mentioned in difference from letter, the amount of the interest, of the loan as the net unearned policy over suf 19, $106.07 indebtedness on October 1932 was single as at premium policy $5000 ficient a net to extend the insured’s age 59, days 9, attained 325 1933. It be for or to will making noted that in this the note actuary calculation the credited alleged $5.41 with the He excess interest in advance on the note. admitted Deducting $5.41 he included the same in his calculation. figure given, from the net we have a balance of as the net policy 19, 1932, assuming cash value of the lapsed on October it Appellant’s actuary date. further testified that would carry policy insurance, age as attained extended insured’s 59 years, days, 13, for 315 that is from October 1932 to and including August 24, therefore, 1933. Apparently, $101.04 would required be days 19th, including August from October to and 24, 1933, but only $100.66 was available even if we assume October 19, 1932 lapse. as the date of actuary Appellant’s on cross-examina tion in effect that, figuring admitted the unearned interest credit figured by respondent, equity the net not have policy would been sufficient policy death, to extend the even date of insured’s assuming policy 19, July lapsed became effective 1923 and October 19, 1932.
Assuming, however, sufficient, that the amount was we reach no different policy provided that, result. policy The “this and the application herefor, a copy attached, of which is hereto shall constitute the entire parties.” contract between application The was dated July 13, 1923, provided: agree “I . that the insurance applied herein payment shall take effect until first thereon, annual premium part ap nor until II I and plication have been completed actually have been received approved City, Missouri, company at its Home Office Kansas policy shall bear approval, of such re unless otherwise quested (Italics in Statement ours.) 9 above.” Under Statement above were written the 28, words: policy age.” “date June to hold 28, The date of correctly insured’s birth was stated as December 1873. Age (nearest birthday) given as 49. premium The annual quarterly. given applied payable for was be policy on the age birthday given hold that age (nearest Although, the 27, 1923, because, if dated have had to be dated June would birthday, have subsequently, age, nearest would been the insured’s year. per rate have would level been^Md.lO received was dated to and policy actually issued age 49, premium $187.60. annual and showed figured its date and the values shown in the are “ company provides: legally If be surrendered to within year any thirty-one days third from its date or of after the end of the year have been thereafter, premiums year and all to the end of that herefor, all cash, pay other company will lieu benefits, (1) accompanying sum indicated Column Values, Company Table of indebtedness to Guaranteed less (Italics ours.) on account It conceded that policy.” of this shown; application July 13, 1923, for the made on the date application by respondent approved was received and July 16, 1923; to insured and the was delivered premium paid on July 19, 1923; and that 9^/4 were paid policy prior Appellant quotes on the lapse. says consideration clause and *13 year.”
“the first policy quotes application, also the omitting the supra, policy italicised contends that the and did not premium become effective the was the until paid; premium 19, was policy July 1923; and the delivered and that the date; ran insurance from that of of the first payment that date premium the the delivery and of control date over the date stated policy, premium and since the premiums payable quarterly, were the paying 1923, quarterly July 19, dates were the policy and lapsed 19, 1932, July 19, October years from 1923. 91/4 appellant’s objection documentary Over respondent offered evidence a notices, of course dealing between the parties, including premium and letters from respondent, application an for re-instate- and ment, requests extensions, signed by and letters the insured expressly recognizing premium paying June 27th the date. annual
The court issued, that the policy found delivered and became 19, 1923, effective July age insuring but “in order to make 49 the . the policy accepted 27th dated June and was and received by” the insured. The court held took effect on July 19, 1923, but as premiums with the annual June June, premiums corresponding due the 27th quarterly and dates, recognition by parties and that the the of June 27th in each year, due, binding as the date premiums appellant. upon Halsey relies v. American Central Life Com Ins. pany, 659, 951; 258 Mo. 167 W. Howard Aetna Ins. S. v. Life Com pany, 113; 1062, 346 (2d) Mo. 145 S. W. Johnson v. American
484 115; 290, 249 S. App. 212 Mo. W. Company, Insurance Central Life 130, App. Mo. 208 Company, Life Ins. Security Mutual v. Chestnut Company Health Ins. Accident & Kennedy National 203; v. 232 S. W. rule cases, adopting 748, other and (2d) S. 76 W. (Mo. App.), where policies in insurance of construction “effective the usual contains part policy) (or application, and clause, the date and delivery payment”
oh and different another in the as written due date beginning marks date, delivery date said paid for premium is and where the effectiveness year from said date. for one policy runs annual period, Life Prange v. International such as upon cases Respondent relies 523; v. General (2d) Tabler 651, 46 W. Company, 329 Mo. S. Ins. 278; Win (2d) W. 117 S. Company, Mo. American Life Ins. W. 290 S. Mo. Company, Life Ins. ters Loan v. Reserve distinguishable from facts, are cases, upon their These other cases. two between by The difference upon appellant. cases relied v. of Howard case fully in the recent groups of cases is discussed here presented supra. question The Company, Aetna Life Ins. date of effective delivery fixes payment whether date the contract or whether premium paying dates also the policy and as stated 27th payments at June date for fixed the annual policy. out, case, set as heretofore controlling think the facts of We relied controlling facts in the cases distinguished are easily agreed upon by specific appellant. In this case 28th, said June specific purpose. application true that It is the clear and accomplish 27th to had to be dated June by application. insured in the definite purpose indicated payment providing dated June day every year twenty seventh “on continuance,” during its was received thereafter age of that date. premium paid on the basis of insured’s accomplished purpose application indicated could be *14 pay theory premium the the controlled that the date o'f and objected to evidence ments ran from that date. We hold that the unambiguous vary any plain not tend to terms did the fixed 27th as properly The contract .admitted. premium payments, for annual date 91/4. 27, The policy lapsed September the 1932. net value of the of that date. must be determined as refusing It the in admit is next contended that court erred to of by appellant prove evidence the amount insurance the offered age years. This purchase at the insured’s of 50 paid would theory that there was misstatement evidence was offered oh age age years; 50 in took rate for application; July 1923. The evidence effective became and that refused. properly adjusted is of insurance the amount unless insists that Appellant age years, at insured’s buy premium paid would what Ann., 1939, Mo. Sec. R. St. clearly Sec. S. violates insurants between discrimination prohibits 4369 which 5729, p. argument -upon of life. This equal expectations class and the same began July paying date of the that the theory Back policy. in 1923, rather than June or not make the void unenforceable dating did App. Company, Life Ins. Mo. v. New York (see, Landau written adjustment of insurance on 1003), nor authorize 544, 203 W. S. court age July 1923. The cannot of insured’s attained basis suggested. Prange v. upon basis the contract insurance rewrite supra. Company, Life Insurance International finally sustaining the court in contends that erred close evidence offered respondent’s demurrer whole, says “this should direct the trial court case. court judgment appellant.” Appellant enter favor of treats establishing liability conclusively contended for evidence findings requested specific party her. In the trial each facts positions. their respective law favorable to The certain conclusions of requested by respondent. the law as court found the facts and declared for “given”' instruction defendant was also marked peremptory A request judgment plaintiff was refused. The court requested finding also refused insurance was effect for finally judgment the full amount at the time of death. The insured’s entered recites that court “finds the issues herein favor of plaintiff.” and against defendant evidence in the case is for documentary. questions part presented the most involve the identity construction of documents which are conceded. The liability question presented. is one law record unnecessary assigned. It is consider errors The court other did judgment entering judgment herein. The not err affirmed. Dalton, C., PER foregoing opinion is adopted CURIAM:—The opinion Leedy, Tipton, as the en Banc. Clark and Court Douglas, JJ., Ellison, J., dubitante; Hays JJ., concur; Gantt, C. absent.