KNAPPEN, Cirсuit
the District Court
tion, under which it
fully
ing
relevant
lacking
tially
ror.
view
considered
ignation was
evidence. Bessette v.
accused in
record with
incompetent evidence
“the
isted, although
dence.
ble relation
while the court had other information
to his attention
pending in
of
have
sent of counsel for the
What was
minum
there was substantial evidence
finding
we must
United States
the action of the
appears in
on she has
considered those facts in
spiracy
that the trial court
content to
acts
conclusion
the trial
Kelly
sion.
947.
court, the
prospective
Ohio,
Before
PER CURIAM. On
S. Ct.
application
Nor
similarly
The review
which had more
sequence
it, directly
Upon
fully considered
in the
That we
v. United
In the
Castings
sequence
in substantial
sequence were,
to influence certain members
matter.
evidence
Eastern
do
accept
court,
corruptly
665,
complaint
prosecuted
thought pertinent
guilt.
committing
accused,
been intended to influence
DONAHUE,
court. Prom a conviction
the record
say,
alleged contemptuous
we find
put
with
was of
considered
juror
of
opinion
might
another does
the court was inadmissible.
the environment
consent
hypothesis,
here
bore
if
Co. C. C.
court was
into
States
Some of
events,”
of events
C. C.
Division,
did not
contempt of
L. Ed.
for the Northern
supported
it does not
endeavoring
this rule.
finding
the utmost
(6
erroneously acted
evidence
is writ of
received at the
Judges.
have
error, upon
Conkey,
is
investigation of a con-
acts
support,
tending
A.) 251
less
(9
accused,
reaching
information
record
facts
criminal cause
subsidiаrily
997;
stated,
MOORMAN,
not offered in
reviewing
warrant a convic-
based on
evidence, and are
NEW
C. C.
drawn
the motive
plaintiff in error
if none other
culminating par-
bearing upon the
respect wholly
majority
A.) 214 F.
under that
faets constitut-
does
“environment”
appear
to support
referred
accused;
Sona
relevancy.
to show
with
Swepston v.
put
YORK
A.)
and,
substantial
his conclu-
acts
a different
error,
U. S.
205. We
insepara
influence
anything
hearing,
District
brought
into the
it, that
nothing
in will-
ground
argued
19 P.(2d)
there-
alleg
affect
upon 1. Insurance
to as
Alu
acts,
con
*1
LIFE
324,
des
and other than a
evi-
ex
ju
we
F.
properly admitted
3.
proved.
no error
to
pel.]
meeting
misrepresentation of known material facts in-
in Oklahoma
check for
delivery
homa
consistent with
of
knowledge
all
Oklahoma
action-by him induced
2. Insurance
clothing
to
statutes were
INS. CO. v.
or
is induced
to
party
sale as
where the
apparent power
clothing
topped
truth»
edge.
der
render
homa
8201, 8204, 8205, 8210).
position
party
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
homa
life
[Ed. Note. —For
Estoppel
On Petition
Circuit
Estoppel
Insurance <©=>222—
NEW
insurer were made
the truth
power
disposition
Pledge
Where
Indisputable
Contract of surrender
Owner
true title.
corrupt attempt to influencethe
Phrases,
Oklahoma
contract,
laws
contract.
injury,
judgment
and absence of
required
another with
injury
YORK
the surrender value
deal with
another with
Court
are
contract.
being
clothing
last act was done
of life
deny
<@=>75
<©=>75—Elements
denying
charging
contract.
REES
(Comp.
closed
disposition,
<©=>240—Contract
<©=>222—
First
and absence of
fair
part
purchase
are
August 21, 1926.
misrepresentation,
subsequent claim; (2) ignorance
since
minds.
is
without
Oklahoma
contract
ownership.
of
LIFE INS.
citizens
elements
delivery
by Comp.
—Owner
party claiming
No.
to that
is affirmed.
and surrender
Rehearing,
consideration
estopped against
policy, made in
him the truth should
(1)
property
another
Appeals.
without demand
St.
disposition, inducing third
contracts,
Pledgee
Oklahoma,
apparent
7052.
Pledge
Okl.
intentional or careless
apparent power
evidence of
equal
Second
whereby
definitions,
complying
of
place
had no
pledgee
clothing
of life
citizens
deal with
Oklahoma,
misrepresentation;
1921, 4123,
to his
St.
Eighth
apparent
CO. v. REES.
foreign
May 19,
means of knowl-
of life
equal
8210.
essential
of a contract
of
estoppel
Series,
title or
Okl.
life
apparent
estoрpel;
was an
§§
of what
a third
right
surrender
ignorance
another
injury,
with
see Words
constituted
Oklahoma,
notice and
Circuit.
life
agent and
there
Oklahoma
means of
juror.
the third
a willful
an Okla-
insurer’s
policy in
was not
1927.
of one
Estop-
closed
Okla-
Okla-
is es-
title
dis-
one
un-
of
§§
is
*2
REPORTER,
FEDERAL
2d
SERIES
making
having
opportu-
@=>115 Party
@=>222 Estoppel
Estoppel
of one
6.
13.
Insurance.
—
—
assignment
another,
nity
estoppel by plea
exhibit
surren-
to disclose
to
policy
life
dering
insurer,
pledge,
it to
in evidence.
to claim
matter
constitutes affirmative defense.-
party
opportunity
es-
If a
has no
to disclose
toppel
pleading, may
matter in
Estoppel
assignment
he
making
exhibit
one
absolute
which
thereof at trial
issue
policy
another,
who surrendered it
to
of life
say
assign-
value,
involves the fact.
that
its surrender
tо
for
an affirmative
was a
is
defense.
@=>404
Pleading
plead mate-
14.
—Omission
@=>471(2) Testimony
surety
Evidence
on
7.
by
by
thereon
—
rial
is cured
of issue
fact
tender
pledged
agree-
policy
for
debt
was
party.
objec-
policy
security
toment
hold
as
held not
pleading
is cur-
An omission to
material
tionable.
regarding
by pleading
ed
tender
issue
Testimony
surety
on debt to
for opposite party.
policy
pledged, that
its officers
which life
agreed
was
security
@=>404
policy
him,
Pleading
for
was
to hold
as
of issue tendered
15.
—Trial
objectionable
estops parties
subsequently
pleading
not
as a conclusion.
from
nying
properly
issues were
made.
@=>91
giv-
testimony
8. Trial
to strike
—Refusal
by pleading, in ab-
Trial of issue tendered:
objection
on
en
direct examination without
plea, answer,
replication
rais-
sence of
subjected to cross-examination held not abuse
estops
it,
though they
pleaded,
es
as
had been
of discretion.
subsequently
denying
issues
from
that
assigned
policy,
action
In
life
which was
on
taking any
answer,
properly made,
ad-
were
indebted,
bank to which
and sur-
to
rendered
ficiary, claiming
refusing
assured
rep-
vantage,
plea,
in absence of such
bank, brought by
bene-
to.insurer
lication.
assignment
pledge,
testimony
surety
to strike
on
out
Principal
agent @=>178(1)
16.
—Notice
where
debt that
the surrender
the
of
discussed
value
agent
agent
principal,
not notice to
is
policy
agent,
on di-
given
insurer’s
with
power,
reference
have
to act
does not
with
objection,
examination, without
and sub-
rect
jected
thereto.
cross-examination,
to extended
was not
notice
Rule that notice to
constitutes
abuse
discretion.
principal
not
to
have
not
does
does
include
who
Appeal
@=>1047(1) Judgment
principal
9.
will
refer-
for his
—
act
rulings
affirmed, where
subject-matter
on evidence
er-
very
if
notice re-
ence to
to which
roneous,
prejudicial.
not
lates.
rulings
evidence,
As concerns
where
on
insured,
@=>253(5)
17. Trial
—Instruction
rulings,
erroneous,
if
could not have been so
having
assignee,
paid
policy
value
would
prejudicial
verdict, judg-
as
affected the
assignee
bound,
not
held
in absence of notice that
ment must be affirmed.
collateral,
ig-
erroneous,
held
noring
estoppel.
claim
Rehearing.
On Petition for
Where,
in action on life insurance
@=>222 Beneficiary
estopped
assigned by
10. Insurance
which had been
benefi-
insured and
—
recovеring
ciary
paid-up
assignee,
on
insurer
if
had no
con-
knowledge
assignment
flicting
evidence on
of defendants’
paying
assignee;
assignment
surrender value to
as to whether
was a
introduced,
sale
had been
refusal
If insurer
policy by
bound,
that defendant
not be
in ab-
would
beneficiary
insured
was a
showing
assignee
sence
held
pledge,
sale,
and not a
as evidenced
collateral,
erroneous,
depriving
held
of claim of
contract,
until after it had
surrender value
estoppel.
of trial
defendants
assignee, beneficiary
estopped
.of
maintaining
from thereafter
on
aft-
er insured’s death.
In Error to the District Court of the Unit-
Pleading @=>186 Defendant, by
for the Eastern
silence aft-
States
District of Mis-
—
reply pleading
joined
estoppel,
er
denial
such souri;
Faris, Judge.
Charles B.
1256).
(Rеv.
issue
St. Mo.
§
Action
of life insurance
El-
1256, providing
Under Rev. St. Mo.
§
len M. Bees
New York Life Insur-
allegation
reply
that
deemed
matter in
shall be
estoppel
controverted,
Company.
Judgment
issue of
was suf-
ance
for
pleaded
ficiently
silence,
defendant
aft-
brings
defendant
error.
and re-
Reversed
reply expressly pleaded
er
facts
a denial of essential manded,,
directions.
estoppel
thereby
tendered
such is-
sue.
H.
Jones,
Frank
Sullivan and
C.
James
@=>l
Estoppel
plead
need
Jr.,
Louis,
10—Defendant
not
(James
Jones,
of St.
Mo.
both
C.
estoppel
ing
it,
givr
prove
in order
where facts
te
Hocker,
Eugene
Angert,
Lon
O.
H.
complaint.
rise thereto were
Louis, Mo.,
brief),
on the
St.
Where,
policy, plain-
in action on insurance
in error.
plead pledge
complaint,
tiff failed
Chauncey
Louis,
Clarke,
Mo.,
H.
of St.
necessary
plead plain-
defendants
in error.
to claim
tiff’s
permitted
prove
order to be
SANBORN,
Judge,
Before
Circuit
it,
opportunity
it had no
such
estoppel.
JOHNSON,
Judges.
MUNGER
District
surance
benefit
insured
gee,
debted
denced
and Mrs. Rees
Wagner
from,
poliey and the
efit
render
signment of the
cash
On
company”
1922,
husband
ed
signment and
plied to the insurance
company
insurance
that the bank
was not liable because the
Mrs. Rees.
buy
that, although
suant
required
surrender value of the
tion whether the
ness of Mr. Rees to it for about
foreclosed
poliey
Rees and the
tried to a
mere
der it.
come
tice,
up
receive
and
WALTER
After the death of Mr.
$4,000. Mr. Rees
February 4,1916,
them
and
policy.
bank
real
Okl.,
or sell the insurance
the lien
or
surrender value. About
рledgee,
that value was
to it the
to its terms. Mrs. Rees
subject
About
to the
of his
value, presented and delivered to the
took the
its owner
advantage
company
the life
Company,
proposed sale, public
Upon
had
transaction between Mr.
owner
to the amount
company
to
surety
was a mere
sections
Guaranty
The
March
wife, Ellen
assigned
bank was
brought
poliey
Mr. and Mrs.
demand of
poliey and
submitted to
promissory
H.
so that the
without
to
the written
applied
these
made an absolute written as-
rules and
poliey “and all
bank
which returned a verdict for
bank, and delivered that as-
the insurance
was entitled on
SANBORN,
the conditions of the said
company
thereon. At that time Mr.
to be
Bunn’s
Charles
to it.
4,1917, Mr. Rees
made at the time of the
$769.76.
pleadings
poliey
corporаte
to the bank that
right
company for
poliey
State'Bank
died on October
had or
of about
secure
M.
payment, public
policy of that
New York
the written
bank
notes,
poliey and, second,
regulations The
its terms
Compiled
$4,000 specified
NEW YORK
Rees to
plaintiff and
answered that it
Rees)
to sell or surren-
Rees,
A.
but remained from Mr. and
Circuit
dividend,
or
derived
assignment.
The
the indebted-
replied, first,
the ease was
with Natt T.
company
January 12,
received the
authority
$3,150, evi-
$3,150,
against
8201,
application
never
private,
Mrs.
of Musko-
never
bank
absolute,
Life In-
the
Statutes
provid-
deliver-
Judge.
$769.-
there:
bank,
ques-
date,
ben-
pur-
sum
LIRE
ap-
her
no-
F.(S
in-
31,
be-
a)
iey
it carried with it
therefor, and
in or under the
found that the
ment or sale of the
Rees
ment of the
found for
plaintiff.
tion 8205.
take the surrender value
various circumstances
pany of
thorities
surrender
law and the
that the transaction
pledged policy.
Rees and the
was of the
bank,
ance
property
pledgor of the time
enforced
vided :
the state
rights
ed must
governments, states
upon
statutes, the bank never
surrender the
cumstances
ship
accordance with the
demand
der value of the
debt
INS. CO. REES
pledge Mr.
pledgee
proposed
78i
give
Oklahoma,
The first
“A
“The
“A
to secure the
defendant;
pledged-to him, except
Rees to
company,
and
thereof
pledgee
notice
*3
absolute
pledgee
payment
be made
(the owner) make
the trial in this
sale
and
-
pledged
in accordance with
of Oklahoma..
pledgor
it
they
As
in this case must be
opinion that, notwithstanding
bank and
poliey
pledged propеrty
payment
support
and under
sale of
jury
complaint of the insurance
rules
and
the bank was
bank was not
notice
by a pledgee
and
plaintiff,
or
policy. Counsel
bank held it
ought
but
must
under "this
took
poliey, including the
cannot sell
him,
insurance
payment of
by public
to take
secure
every
that,
Rees
will
to it
governing
their
that, if
provisions
and
give
or
no better title than the
poliey,
if he could be
of the debt secured and
to
between Mr. and Mrs.
court
if the
or a
pledgee,
in the absence of such
did
right
verdict should be for
debt
find verdict for the
various statutes the
ease
corporations.”
property
compliance
sold,
acquired
the surrender value
Those statutes
actual
place
auction.”
merely
policy may
duty
they
general
charge the
debt
must
a
but
take
due to
below, however,
is that
property pledg-
laws
the assured had
transaction was
the debt
absolute
absolute
demand Mr.
the statutes of
them
at
or the
the
of the statutes
tell the owner
cite
obligations
governed
at which the
believed and
of Mr.
such reason-
was a mere
evidence of
the surren-
the owner-
pledged
rightfully
many
found,
other cir-
the bank
rights
rule
with the
imposed
security
right
right
Section
assign-
found
insur-
under
Rees.
court
com-
jury
pro-
pol-
Sec-
au-
to
REPORTER, 2d
FEDERAL
SERIES
lahoma
these
was
the minds
was
pany’s
last
Mut.
of and its
ten
poliey
zens
state
ing to
company;
place
zens and residents of
anty
poliey
poliey
surance
fore the
anty
state New York. The
pledged property
place
sonal
Guaranty
the date
and which said notice shall contain the name
of
bank shall
selling
directly,
able time
owners
date
States,
five
session as collateral
obligation
pledgor
utes
A.
(N.
**
[1,
Oklahoma, the statutes of Oklahoma
the
the
573, 577, 138 C. C. A.
And
2]
into them
[N.
charge
S.)
As
act was done
also
public
of Oklahoma. The
an
written
of the
Bank and the
two
Life Ins. Co. v.
State Bank was a
of a contract
property
state of
of
*
was
bank
At the time the
time the contract
state of Oklahoma.
goods, chattels,
which was
such
check
these contracts
S. Ct.
57. The
S.]
Oklahoma as to
Oklahoma,
Oklahoma
amount
company,
time therein
sale.”
an Oklahoma
section 4123
of
agreements
Provided,
is to be
Bank
delivery
before tbe sale as will enable the
made,
employ moneys, directly
due
attend.” Section 8201.
and
places
trade or
400);
pledge,
and the namе of the
the
request
pledges
for the surrender
(Armour
Oklahoma.
1,19,
delivery
the contract
it,
claimed
notice;
last
Mr. and Mrs. Rees were citi
parties.
court that
to be sold
essential
sold,
56 L. Ed.
granted
the
upon
was
contract;
and
the surrender value of the
is
the’nature of the default
latter’s
that it
security
act
commerce, by
were as much
as if
McCue,
Oklahoma to the Guar
specified
were made in
wares merchandise:
contract;
there was
January,
Packing
of the insurance
Oklahoma,
provided
C. C.
the
comply
contract
in this case
demand,
posting
county
corporation
corporation
place
contract
description
Clark v.
least
come
may
be due
acceptance
and
surrender of
A.
it was made in
was
to it were
had beеn writ
the insurance
for such
Northwestern
failure
with the stat
closed Ok
Co.
135,14
sell
value
at which
the
ten
into its
pledgor,
wherein the
that:
38 L. R.
no error in
a notice in
notice,
test
meeting
U. S.
made,
thereon at
the
buying
or
v. United
Belt,
was done
the state
parts
any per-
days
debt
the in
of the
of
of the to
there
Guar
or in-
relat
L. R.
com
pos-
citi
“No
and
and
223
the
the
the
the
the
be-
A.
representation;
tion;
the
Rees
familiar
be
and
quent
pleaded
material
carelessly by
that, if
misrepresented
such
misrepresentation;
topped
cure Mr.
company
tive
ments
al or
truth and
ed the facts
produce evidence
with the
than
that the
duced to
portunity ought
the owner
company
the
ment of the
other substantial
pledge
purchase
ing payment
insurance
of
tices
pledgee
signеd
ance
[4,
deny
surrender the
permitted
*4
the
it, (3)
the
Such an
5]
plaintiff
property
ground
absence of
It
of
defense;
left the
careless
provided
the bank.
and
claim
of such an estoppel
policy,
The next
and that the
latter,
it
the transaction between Mr. and
it is
insurance
as a
and
the court to have instructed
apparent
apparent
Rees’ debt to be
the bank was
facts inconsistent with the subse
pay
whereby
who
or deal with
(4) injury
than
that it acted in reliance
company
of
delivered to the bank and in reli
poliey,
allegations
of the
poliey,
that the
thus
is
estoppel, however, indisputable.
estopped by
right
misrepresentation
poliey;
to be
ignorant
their
defense
from
out
induced
no better
claims
the bank.
equal
ought
contention of
оwnership
public
(2)
her
poliey
to be
amount; and if
pleaded,
company
party
a third
equal
which she and her husband
to its
title or
proved.
was
relied
the latter
claiming
pledge they
debt
husband
support
general
ignorance
the
statutes.
means
to this action
$769.76,
if the defendant
of that
it
given
without first demand-
auction after the no-
who invokes the mis
who clothes another
injury
title
means of
(4) thereby
estoppel;
to his
upon.
an
party
it would have
that the insurance
the
erred in its
are
or
Indispensable
latter if
no better title
had pleaded;
the true title is
rule of law that
or defending on
existence
absolute
absolute
surrender value
intentionally
of its denial if
making
counsel for the
misrepresenta
that of a mere
the surrender
in that
(1)
of known and
of the truth
is induced to
injury
made to sе
it
No
was a mere
an
of
(3)
intention
insurance
equity
the truth
such
plaintiff
denying
affirma-
was in
disposi
assign
assign
an
sale
convey
charge
and to
prov
is es-
been
jury
op-
ele
or
to the
the defense of
for the defendant. ly denied,
transaction when
tions,
This
request for the instruction demonstrates the
urged.
absolute and
livered
fact that
sive
render the
terms
render
nothing more;
fense
alleged
unlimited in
to transfer to the bank
still
pay the
signment
ed a
acted under
had surrendered
nied. The
things,
denied.
for instructions to the
foreclosed. The defendant
pledged to it to
return
fit
sold
not
policy.
pleadings presented. When
ficiary, and that the
ing else. The
that
assignment
quest nor in
amend
ant
company,
motion
Mr.
After the court -had delivered its
Thereupon,
either Mr. or
evidence was substantial
case was tried
a sale
that
Mis.
Mr. and Mrs. Rees
adhered to the defense
copy
enforcing its
the record was that the
found
its answer
value thereof
that
assigned
insurance.
from the
verdict
the actual transaction between Mr.
It
preponderant
Rees and
that the court could not take that
that the court
because the evidence was so
pleaded in
its
charge,
of it to
first
existence
and after counsel for the defend-
(2d)—
that time
policy, including
its
this
effective,
answer
an absolute
the record before the court
secure
the insurance
terms,
jury
of these
had never
in its
or to
presented
jury
did the defendant
the bank was a
claim for the reasons now
on the issues which
The defendant
should return a verdict
this ease. The
company had
therefor.
the insurancе
a debt
paid $769.76,
and neither in
favor,
answer,
in that
every right
at that time that the
had made
replied, among
instructions
request
request
instruct the
nothing more,
assignment of
its
made no motion to
NEW YORK
to the insurance
of Mr.
as the
several
never in
which the court bank which the
the trial
assignment
which
but
legal
company
way.
which
bank,
estoppel,
surrendering
redeemed
It
for instruc-
absolute as-
preponder-
effect was if he
answered
answered
company
failed to
were de-
plaintiff
requests
present-
But the
proper-
persua-
present
jury
attach-
it
merely
reality
ended,
death
bene-
bene-
noth-
made
*5
these'
LIFE
had tion was baseless.
was
de-
the to this
the 752,
re-
I’.(aa)
it and settled
special agent
Wagner
tell
ern
fendant
would
the loan value
three months
object
this
ing him
stated
madе a
was that was a
cross-examination drew out of
with the defense
benefit of that
all
had:
discussed
loan value of the
testified that
ing
signment,
showing
ant
amination-
was
who was
forcing
policy
pel
“In connection
so late and was
Natt T.
policy as
INS.
submit
v.Co.
surrender the
paid up
This was as
be-
that.” Counsel
point
Louisville
Gaddy
Wagner
There were other
trial
CO. REES
Edmondson,
which was
in
to that,
be, anticipating I
Jackson,
before,
bound,
testimony
request
it to
her claim
proof
Sullivan,
of notice to us that
Wagner,
what the loan value of the
it
which
taken
97 C. C. A.
surety
said to
security
counsel for the
collateral
that, “wanting to know
its Oklahoma
informed me
within reasonable
presenting
testimony
New York Life
also testified
claims and attended
in 1921 he
elapsed
you
debt of
in the refusal
& N. Co.
there
matter
thаt he solicited insurance for
near
for another
security.
so obscure
policy
four
state of
view
pleaded
on
jury.
under its policy,
defense of a
counsel
were not asked that.”
conclusion,
denied,
policy
the vice
respect
R.
latter
security.”
witness
general agent
exceptions
Rees,
policy
witness:
complaints
of the terms
when
was
with Mr.
him
in the absence
time of its admission
would have the notes
the defendant in
Choctaw
effectually by plead-
debt of Rees to the
approximately
affairs between
defendant said:
hardly
was
City
presenting
we
agreed
defendant came at
pledged
on his direct ex
instruction to
the bank
I passed
president
for
would be. As I
Womack,
Gaddy
the bank’s
ask
and that
Company,
tried that there
at that
length
personal estop-
surety
might
a conversation
only
officein
so
colloquy was
“No;
114 C.
ever two or
the witness
thereto
of this trial.
inconsistent
Gaddy,
O.
to hold the
your honor
and it came
defendant:
of this as-
what the
objection
plaintiff,
have
was the
& G.
court to
—”
C. A.
held
so
of some
time,
the de
do
secure,
policy
would
objec
East
time.
what
busi-
And
that,
ask
en-
his
At
R.
“I
F.
I
REPORTER, 2d
19 FEDERAL
SERIES
been received
fendant,
or the court
that
case
rulings on the admission and exclusion of evi
roneous could have been so
verdict
issue, testified that it was a
dence, but a studious examination of each of
sion is
homa
if
with it in.
claims
knew and testified to the facts decisive of that
ness
defendant as to have
them has convinced that none of them if er
without
have been
sale, and there is no
rect examination
harmless one. As we have shown the
nied the
pledge
strike out
agreement,
Gaddy
been error to
the
motion
told
bank.
sue of
could have affected was the issue of sale or
dence of a sale of the
objection, and after extended cross-examina-
cretion of
counsel for the
surance
[9]
Gaddy
Counsel
discussed the
this conversation between
trial,
One of
plaintiff
trial,
check for the
There
urged
him about what it
action,
a fatal error. But
evidence on
the issue whether
upon it,
denial of
City office,and that
necessary
committed
that
At the close
what
to strike it out rested
of the
pleaded by
would have been the same that it was
On
objection
Eastern
was that this
motion,
policy
could
and the evidence which
a fatal
while
been
below,
Petition for
the lоan value
from each of the
court,
testimony of
reasons
deny
matter with
not be considered
exhaustively
policy,
it in
judgment
estopped from
defendant
those for the
stricken
insurance
Oklahoma
direct
the
grant or
which issue evidence had
because
be settled
the defendant. The
motion.
Gaddy
and it does not seem to us
doubt
affected in
*6
pleadings,
prejudicial
abuse
for a
and there was no evi-
policy
was, and the court
alleged
motion,
case,
examination
after
Rehearing.
witnesses,
effect
must be affirmed.
had been
out,
cross-examination,
made a
Wagner in his di-
not the
prejudicial
the denial
company,
him, and
pledge
rehearing of this
argued
erroneously
in the sound dis-
and.
Again, if
out
and our conclu
but the written
our minds
defendant,
defendant sent
pаrties during
deliver
the verdict of
that he
recovering
errors
Wagner
the course of
this
error,
handled
would
receipt of
this court
motion to
and not a
discretion
those for
excepted.
plaintiff, demand
way
received
only
Gaddy
to the
asked
but a
Okla-
ques-
was,
held
who
de-
in-
is-
alt
made no averment
company of the
complaint by the defendant
pertinent
toppel.
plaintiff and
ered the written
proof of his death to the
plaintiff
there cited.
Barnes Union
ed the issuance
bank delivered to
made the
had
to the
plaintiff
render value of the
action was
action and
written
provided
miums for
tage
surrender the
If
able cause
ed in
tween Mr. and Mrs. Rees
signment of Mr. and Mrs. Rees to the defend-
ant,
Rees died
signment
claims
len
tion
Co.
suring his life for the benefit
plaintiff. On March
tion are
facts
er value thereof.
on
counsel and
State
[10]
this claim
We
February 4, 1916,
bank.
The defendant
bank,
premiums,
M.
paid the
(C.
thus
demanded
to be had or
fact, reads,
The actual
presented
Bank of
made and delivered
policy
that it never had
bank
89;
turn
v.
contract
these.
C.
assignment.-
for the
In her
presented
and received therefor the surrender
to believe or
But
assignment
be a
A.)
Given v.
two
condition the
“all
her husband
surrender
estopped
considered
recovering upon
October
and her
the averments of
the bank about
Muskogee, Okl., a written as-
and received from it the sur-
secure a debt Mr. Rees
there
$4,000.
the death of
complaint
necessity
pledge
years
Pacific
dividend, benefit, and advan-
evidences,
policy.
payment by
insured
issued
Pursuant
transactiоn, however,
defendant claimed
concerning
defendant was well found
derived therefrom.” Mr.
policy and
has
and not the
5,1917,
Times-Republican
policy $769.76,
can be no
assignment
to Charles
policy,
from maintaining
suspect
was claimed
again
Ry.
husband,
any
“and,”
In her
receive the surrend-
answer to
therein,
them the
1922. The
Co.
to the
policy
notice or reason
to this
pleading
made and
been
of his
her
Mr.
answer to
the written
that the trans
was that
doubt that the
the time
complaint
as the
sale which the
(C.
January 12,
long
to the bank.
A.
paid,
court.
payment
assignment
Charles
bank,
briefed
and eases
insurance
pleadings
this
Guaranty
provision
A.)C.
policy
Rees,
wife,
and still
and her
this es-
after it
by
policy.
$4,000
policy
might
deliv-
alleg-
Prtg.
ques-
owed
they
pre-
this
she
the
El-
be
as-
in-
A.
To this answer
received therefor the surrender of the
and the written
had been done
known,
mere silence
cited
thereby expressly
Railways Co., 158
the transaction between
to the defendant
pel
defendant had
fendant
Y.)
surance as lienholder
policy prior
551,
the death of the insured therein.”
the bank
was a
to disclose
sential
pledge was
said bank
adverse
livered their written
by
sented it
the defendant
trial
14
Vt.
avoidance.”
1919, 1256.
Philadelphia,
complaint,
Howard,
der to
clared that
at the time of
exhibit the
S.
She further
[12,13]
(D.
W.
L. Ed.
the exercise of
virtue
reply
445,
estoppel.
36, Am.
C.)
the bank
reply
of the surrender
to make said surrender
Judge
§
53; Powell
fact of the
be
defendant
that said
sufficiently pleaded. That statute
255
448;
party,
expressly
560, 119 W.
13
shall be
of the
By
permitted to
and not a
estoppel vel
157;
value of
nor until the
fоr the first time she
the bank the
matter
“the
F.
Goode,
alleged
How.
joined that
It was
these averments
lienholder had no
the surrender of the
Revised Statutes
presented
Wilmington,
Wood
If a
before the death of
estoppel
182,
Dec.
issue which
secure a debt of
Shelton
the time
allegation
bank held
statute
deemed controverted
Mo.
estoppel,
S.
maturity
tendered the issue
thereof in evidence at the
ordinary
v.
their
that value to the
not
whose
185;
v.
plead
in her
603; Babcock v. United
only,
Tinsley,
App. 275,
non,
Jackson,
opportunity
U.
by
reply came
prove it, because the
necessary in this case
by pleading,
issue,
v. Southern
“defendant
47. In the ease last
of Missouri and
has no
they
Lord v.
NEW
S.)
and demanded
a denial
knowledge-of
the defendant
etc.,
said
reply
involves the fаct.
of said
of said
direct
and that all this
care would have
estoppel in or
plaintiff in
new matter
137 Mo.
and the
307,
made and de- tiffs.
that therefore
her
lack of notice
8 Wend.
R.
283,
authority
of Missouri
YORK
opportunity
Mr. Rees to fendant was not
alleged
assignment.
that at
Bigelow,
Mrs. Rees entitled to
in,
reply.
Mr. Rees. a
insurance
denial or
R. Co.
334, 335,
reply
knew,
284,138
Ry. Co.
he
so that
*19
the es
by the
repre-
estop
of in-
App.
LIFE
(N.
the Missouri
P.(Sd)
de
*7
its
In
or 43
in
v.
8
v.
v.
vantage
102
fact is cured
Keator Lumber Co. v.
Patch,
reason to
Mr. and Mrs.
which afforded no
408, 413,
it. Defendant answered
position
434, 437,12
much
unnecessary.
ing
or
TNS.
and not a
defendant to
cured
defendant had
424,
Ed.
Ralph,
Estoppel (5th
930]
or
estoppel,
en their
612,
á
clared his
ern
law and the rules of
Texas N. R.
“Counsel for defendant
Ess v.
Chicago St.
der value
Clark v.
Garth v.
[15]
cause of action and their evidence sustained
pleading,
Lyon
Independent
rebuttal,
replication.
Iowa, 350, 364,
replication
Wis.
faith of the
Union
estoppel by
567; Henry
introduced
had been thus
615,
;
12
CO.
properly
subsequently denying
by
Testimony
&
Clink
not,
669,
252 U.
Griffith,
indemnity.
(Mass.)
they
Caldwell,
S. W.
is untenable. Their
City Austin,
31 Ct.
v.
44 N.
was exceeded
suspect
mortgage
The trial of the issues tendered
Even
sale at the time it
Tel.
keep
Loomis
defect and
Mass.
the absence of such
671;
REES
S.
O. R. Co.
S. Ct.
Ry.
by
v.
pleading
[28
An
S.
made and from
Co.
Ed.)
which
Thurston,
averment
declaration
W.
School District
the tender
139 Mo.
if,
663,
Bank of Havelock v. West
New York Life Ins. Co. v. Rees
19 F.2d 781
8th Cir.1927Check TreatmentAI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.