Southern Life Health Ins. Co. v. Morgan

& HEALTH CO. INS. LIFE MORGAN SOUTHERN (21 App.) Ala (cid:127) proximately certificate, the death caused (105 161) damage complained of, basis for held et CO. & HEALTH INS. LIFE SOUTHERN plaintiff’s of action. 637.) (6 Div. MORGAN. al. v. &wkey;>9 8. distress of Dead bodies —Vexation (Court Appeals March of Alabama. of wrongful consequences 1925.) mind as natural May 12, of Rehearing Denied 1925. withholding compen- held of death certificate may <@=9 relation sable. 1. Dead bodies —Nearest burial. with interference against maintain for action In for action insurance present wrongful son, plaintiff's of interference relation dead with burial Nearest withholding wrongdoer burial against for may based on defendant’s maintain action body, necessary issued, to ob- certificate was that, interference unwarranted the irrespective tort, permit, in- tain a in addition to being burial held a to based action arising delay preparation convenience and relation contract in being through wrongful defendant act of forced burial. .a second obtain death from the party <&wkey;9 proper held 2. Dead bodies attending physician, plaintiff was also entitled —Father with burial for interference in action compensatory damages vexation, for body. of son’s wrong, or distress mind to which he was sub- jected Father, natural,, proximate reasonably relation nearest who was son, expected body consequences wrong purposes burying held to be of dead com- for proper party plaintiff, wrongful plained in- of. for in action with burial. terference &wkey;>l 9. Dead bodies entitled to held —Father &wkey;>9Complaint state held 3. bodies body Dead custody — of married son. cause of action for with burial interference body custody held Father entitled of son’s son, present. married where son’s wife Complaint for cause of action state held damages ant wrongful by defend- for interference having <&wkey;3Duty 10. bodies father Dead of— plaintiff’s with burial son. of dead custody give of married son inter- ment. <&wkey;>9 to com- Dead bodies entitled —Father father, It who has law- is the pensatory delay damages for trouble ful dead son rea- of his resulting p'roximately loss of consolation give son of the absence of his son’s interference with burial. a decent interment. damages wrongful In action for terference defendant the burial of dead <&wkey;l—Charges 11. Dead bodies on of fa- son, plea where the bury body prop- ther son held married general issue, plaintiff, establishing on ma- erly refused. allegations terial reasonable satisfaction Charges bury on issue of of father to jury, compensatory was entitled to dam- body of deceased married son re- held ages delay brought trouble about fused. proximate wrong committed, as a result of the as well as the loss the consolation &wkey;>9Diligence procuring 12. Dead bodies — pre- wife and relatives of were who jury. death second certificate held attending vented defendant’s conduct from damages wrongful In action inter- the funeral. ference the burial that the ant’s which insurance <@=9 Father, suing 5. Dead bodies son, appearing dead inter- delayed ference with burial of son’s burial because of defend- held not en- certificate, damages wrongful anguish. titled to for mental retention of a gave it in connection with Plaintiff, suing wrongful interference policy, death under refusal life with burial of held entitled damages pain affirmative instructions the issue whether anguish. for mental plaintiff second diligence securing used reasonable -a (&wkey;9 relating bodies minimizethe Dead —Instructions damage properly wrong, proper. account of defendant’s held held refused; being pro there wrongful In action for inter- the issue. con on burial, by plaintiff, ference with the of his dead son, given charges relating to the burial of the &wkey;>9 place bodies Dead —Evidence where proper, 1919, p. 909, under Acts held certificates of board health blank were 5, 7, 9, 11. §§ relevant, kept held action interference 7. Dead bodies withholding —Intentional burial. proxi- certificate, and refusal to deliver death In action for defendant insur- mately damage causing company’s wrongful ance burial of interference with held actionable. plaintiff’s son, appearing wrongfully action withheld that defendant which necessary permit, for plaintiff to obtain a with the place appearing of his dead where the evidence as blank cer- plaintiff presented kept the board of health when tificates of in connection of those them death certificate convenience rele- diligence policy, procuring vant, under life issue of defendant’s second intentional withholding return to death certificate. Digests <§=»For in all other cases see same an3 KEY-NUMBER ALABAMA REPORTS APPELLATE you,” witness’ h- out of exclusion em- maul &wkey;>9 body was Dead 14. bodies —That inquiring him, question propounded to answer to necessity to show balmed relevant held things, but said those not whether witness had avoiding in funeral. delay error, held he had eursed whether in view wrongful damages for In for action an put. question of the form of company with insurance defendant terference son, plaintiff’s withhold- dead the burial of — procuring cer- t&wkey;546 21. Insurance Party body ing certificate, that the fact a death presenting to insurance it tificate of show to embalmed held relevant before its return, entitled to its held carrying avoiding delay necessity urgent in policy under of death acceptance proof arrangements. the funeral out insurance. Party procuring of death in <@^»9 remained bodies body 15. Dead —Time company, presenting in connec- insurance to legally be before shop undertaker’s could policy, held en- under tion with held relevant. buried return, and ac- tender before its titled to its wrongful damages inter- action for In ceptance of death. with insurance ference defendant son, by plaintiff’s withhold- dead the burial of Rehearing. On necessary ing certificate, to which was appearing permit, a burial obtain <&wkey;>l property is no 22. Dead bodies —There compelled death cer- obtain a second body. dead body tificate, length remained of time body human dead There is shop it could before undertaker’s in legally being, sense. commercial held relevant. buried Right possession Dead 23. bodies <&wkey;9 to show Dead bodies 16. —Evidence trust. of dead is disposition body burial admissible. held disposition Right possession of dead wrongful inter- having In action for body all to be exercised is trust plaintiff’s burial dead with seeing ference interest affection for deceased decent interment company’s insurance caused death, withholding wrongful certificate of right necessary permit, Surviving &wkey;>I— spouse’s to obtain a burial Dead bodies which was all 24. circumstances, connected asserted. facts waived, unless to possession pos- right spouse’s Surviving paramount tending burial, delay caused to show with the by body waived, asserted. unless is failing of dead session deliver the cer- the defendant tificate, held admissible. surviving <&wkey;l spouse 25. Dead bodies —Where — <&wkey;240(2)Permitting asking right, of kin. Witnesses is next possession waives 17. ' surviving spouse, leading as a trial with discretionary is Where possession body right of her dead waives husband, court. impliedly, expressly next of asking leading questions Permitting either possession discretionary kin entitled trial court. with is purposes. constituting bodies Dead —-Members 18. surviving — Right inter- <&wkey;>l action immaterial family Dead bodies held 26. asserted. burial. ference with must be spouse promptly « wrongful body needing burial, In action interfer- of a dead In case surviving spouse promptly right burial of caus- must be ence with the wrong- company’s right possession asserted, ed or the death, withholding purposes of certificate of which will be held ful was immaterial as to who were of interment necessary permit, a burial it was favor of the next of to obtain kin. been waived the members of plain- — surviving plaintiff’s tiff’s <&wkey;I at time of death wife Dead bodies When stated. son. possession waives surviving (cid:127) with is Where wife &wkey;>9 neglects held Dead bodies im- —Circumstances of his husband at the time her on issue interference material the trust incident her to assume or refuses objectionable multiplying possession purposes, right waiver for burial implied, issues. of that provide interment decent imme- action insurance and wrongfully interfering diately acting. the next of kin with the descends son, by withholding a death burial of presented to defendant in connection question plaintiff &wkey;>9 policy, Dead bodies —Interference as to when life defendant, policy from actionable. or the cir- obtained cumstance legal custody Any on t-hat defeated that suit fraud, irrelevant, ground have, body, and ob- the ne&t of kin which tending multiply jectionable legal rights issues. have in wrong. actionable cgc^>236(l) testi- 20. Witnesses —Exclusion Right &wkey;>l witness cursed possession to whether bodies mony as 29. Dead — legal right which courts protect. error. will held not Right possession of a dead testified that defendant’s Where give you right, coupled legal agent d- purposes duties “I won’t a G- said to certain protect. said, thing,” at another time courts will “I’ll Digests <g=>For KEY-NUMBER, see other cases same & HEALTH SOUTHERN LIFE INS. CO. v. MORGAN (21 Ala.App.) parte al., Southern Life et Right & Health Ins. Co. 30. Dead <&wkey;>l bodies possession surviving spouse. So. 168. Right possession spouse to dead following charges plain- given at together spouse, is in if both live request: tiff’s time of demise. “(3) charge you, gentlemen jury, I that of the Surviving 31. Dead bodies <&wkey;l wife’s — copy certified death certificate custody held waived. husband’s by Morgan, Jr., James the introduced evidence Wife, who at was not with husband plaintiff case, prima this evidence facie death, time of his her waived of the facts therein stated. “ his where she you, (4) charge gentlemen jury, I that of the claim it. plaintiff’s under the the dead law of the buried, son could not be unless a 32. Dead bodies <&wkey;3Duty bury to— by burial had been issued the local married held father. son devolved on to have registrar registration of the in which district Where wife did not live her hus- occurred, the death found.” or which the band the time that at he his father’s died in home, appear, did not wife charge jury, “(6) you, gentlemen I of the burying upon the son have devolved held medical of in that under the law a death, attendance on of mit for burial father. signed by physician last made plaintiff’s son, was one &wkey;a766 Appeal error abstract —General per- prerequisites obtaining constituting statements, thrusts at court, of such decedent.” no proper place in brief. lacking statements, logic General abstract charges refused defendant: These authority, constituting and court, thrusts at proper place have no brief. “(7) you this If find from the evidence said time of case that deceased was 34. Dead bodies —Insurance held living, man, his then the a married whose wife was death charged knowledge of law cer- charge you your I that must be verdict tificate death. defendants.” charged Defendant insurance held “(32) you in this find from the evidence If knowledge (Code 1923, with the § of the law defendants did interfere with case that 3S70), requiring a death certificate before a deceased, and further said of the place. burial of a can take prior that and at the evidence find from the time of the death Jr., Morgan, of the said James bodies 35. Dead held <®=^9 —Insurance man and married left awas charged knowledge pertaining laws charge you plain- widow, I that the him then his obtaining form of certificate burial per- action, and cannot maintain case this tiff this mit. your the defendant.” be for should verdict company, Defendant when it charges jury “(41) court wrongfully plaintiff withheld from a certificate dying married man state of a this charged knowledge with the kin, belongs and that the next of to his the health laws embraced in Code 1073, together §§ deceased, of such cannot as the father such regulations with the rules and any wrongs done with reference as for recover to such dead by promulgated county the state and boards conformity statutes, embracing with those you “(42) in this find from the evidence If obtaining form of death certificate for Jr., Morgan, .deceased, case that James permit for the dead. prior man, married the time of death a to and at his plaintiff.” you cannot find usages <&wkey;!2(l) 36. Customs —Insurer’s by plain- recovery “(6) be no There can custom receive certificates of death as any damages in excess tiff in this binding death proofs of held not on not party damages, dol- such one or one cent nominal lar.” knowing custom. Insurer’s custom to receive any plaintiff “(16) cannot award the You proofs holders certificates of death as any part damages in this case trouble on his binding party knowing custom. growing the matters involved this out of case. usages &wkey;>l2(l) Customs Custom, “(17) You cannot award the general in character, not having binds only persons damages this ease for suf- inconvenience knowledge its existence. any expense him fered or incurred him.” Custom, character, binds charge you, gentlemen “(33) jury, I having knowledge persons itsof existence. you any damages assess cannot for decom- body plaintiff’s position of son after first Court, Appeal from Circuit Jefferson Coun- son’s hours after death. Gwin, Judge. ty; B.C. J. charge you, gentlemen “(34) jury I that, after 72 hours from damages the time of death of interfer- Action plaintiff’s son, legally he could have been buried body by the burial of a dead ence with James necessity any permit. the If without Morgan the Southern Life & Health “(35) you case, believe the evidence in this Company Judg- Lowe. O. Insurance you plaintiff any damages award cannot appeal. and defendants ment wife, son, his daughters, the failure of friends Affirmed. failing to attend the burial of his son. “ by Supreme you in Ex ease, denied Court Certiorari believe m If this Digests (gxwE'or cases see in all other same and KEY-NUMBER REPORTS APPELLATE ALABAMA tion Durell the as Am. 422, Ala. fusing that no v. lee. to use 948 238, App. Am. 556, Defendants were 6 Ann. L. Thompson ants Co. v. Alexander, mingham coverable. 17 C. Cent. So. Sloss Co. charge. Cent. Finley 524, 1145; 15 Okl. Congregation, Co., involved leged the defendants.” the event the able the reasonable So. you any damages death certificate.” count of the you you cannot account composed.” “Count “(46) Brief SAMFORD, “(37) E. E. The Huey Welch, “(43) Lynn, follows: on account R. ; recovery 722; 582; Worthington defendants cannot award 78 So. cannot award existed, 147 N. C. 61 So. 39 find for the 372, the sum of market value of the Dec. 14 St. Larson v. R.Yt. in said R. Co. diligence Steverson, 333; son. R. v. 11 C. award complaint v. Cas. of counsel did not more than nominal 512, Am. & Garrison, The court The court If L. R. A. Rep. 122 Mass. Newton 2. The give, you Atl. Tr. v. A..1917E, 76 So. Gulf 80 So. Tr. & Hayward, 284; you v. 878 14 611; Mitchell, 1005; S R. 8 R. C. 86 P. it was Co., Rep. count v. should J. Pierce, of his failure etc., Ala. 141; J. The at defendant’s ; complaint believe the evidence 394, St. Steel Co. converted Chase, to minimize his value Elliott, 8 Weld plaintiff case, 64; 288. The court Tr. Co. if5,000, such conversion 94 Yt. Deavors v. So. Co., due the v. states no cause R. C. L. J. 289, 107 Ga. 463. Plaintiff’s App. 217, .852, charges 61 343. in charges find Long Bessemer, Brook, L. 1147; 161 Ala. 9 Birmingham, 95 Neb. Union plaintiff any plaintiff any 220 N. Y. on the then in excess 28 the widow. consisted 47 complaint upon v. S. E. Central 6 R. A. Gray (Mass.) 248, Ann. v. 6! L. App. 313, 6S6; 14, claims of the defend- v.. L. the Minn. If Am. Walker, reach the 518, general affirmative v. to attend 686; Ala. amended, damages, Still, 109 A. son L. 698 Kyles any 134 v. Cemetery 278; 69 Cas. the request, Chicago death market 17 C. 33 S. St. Fail, damages. of the reason- So. cannot award ure and 17 C. jury becoming App. 134, jury Ala. converted cause Ex. Co., erred 7 1917D, 57 So. (N. Georgia case under and Jacobus appellants. ; v. Sou. 146 N. W. 130 Rep. 905, one count Nichols of action. 251; Ala. Reporter. E. 115 N. E. excess of leave said remains 50 N. W. Whitney J. then 201 were for that Co., charges J. that, S.) 883, 269, R. of 853, Co. appel- of ac- Mass. in re- 1145; 12 A. 1139, App. case, burial, 726; 370; Ala. Ala. wafe Bir- said Co., 200 de- ern re- al- 69 82 R. R. 73 32 in as one of v. v. v. maintain tions were proved plaint at submitted preparation being pain charged jury, relation claim from the terference time tion tion of committed, respective damages for presence, which er about as a friends, Morgan, action 17 ters, ing prevented from Susie reason deprived, contrary tificate, son taker while taining convenience and also anguish, composed buried the the 1921, mains of his dead ant, proximate consequence physician poration, of his a said dead heretofore, [3-5] [1, party plaintiff. him his due him and about demurrer Corpus Life & gravedigger the undertaker, wrongfully agent, and is 2] As paying Morgan Charges 3, the nearest would have befitting request is for employment, quickly and the The thereof said action could not purpose suffering thereby issue, the burial of and to refusal, the for burial of his would while anguish last in attendance on the comfort, to such extent that to the long time, wit, divers as well as the Juris, Health Insurance he went controverted, material matter, complaint proximate the dead jury, action the trouble employee and Christine prerequisites assigned. and reasonable satisfaction final tort wit, acting postpone faded and refused to surrender funeral service attending complaint. All of these subject present, be of of which he sues.” jury. the burial. This been rendered 1145 and as to contract relation without had the wife and relatives other close relatives giving consolation, and assistance demand therefor a medical Herbert tribute therefore, securing 8 R. C. L. obtained thereby entitled as was in search of on the 30th burial of the driver plaintiff made to remains within allegations his wrongdoer, such his son. the hands of great said James states a of such (20) 3. result of and the the last sad a** unwarranted great trouble and in- L. O. such The recover expectations, and were rise loss of were ceremony provideu Morgan, decedent, and, custody of the re- Morgan,, another given from the this the court eliminating 24 was mental his dead Company, Morgan, Jr., decayed if the p. relation form, plea conducted, delay brought Lowe, compensatory signed correct line and wrongful hours, said present may cause 696, par. 19, day compelled plaintiff the consola the nearest obtaining hearse, by Eugenia of had to be an action ir rites, such pain was the physician properly extended plaintiff plaintiff grounds his his writing mental a serv- and at the daugh- wrong South- under- of, state- prop ques scope com July, hav- con- The as a fail- cor- cer- said was law and de- ac in ménts refused. question short qiiested As has heretofore been firmative that through exemplary damages compensatory the and structions as ants or The shown that, of mately 33, refused 57 So. 141. the burial charges ants withholding delay arising in evidence reasonably interment. It follows that written custody was distress of mind R. v. ages, ant Lockhart, Dancy, diligence It, the tioned results count Ill. award of G. A. R. [13-16] [12] Under [7] As [9-11] It r8] action, providing & therefore, body, 34, 35, Cen. 11 Acts to obtain a second therefore wrong complained of, also bodies, by consent,” and the Where, the Taxicab Co. the Quick, of defendants’ of the law that case, and, either cause 97 charges 10, 14, he had wife of the and were has heretofore Ry. It offering instructions to as minimize the father had the lawful subjected -which'gives additional attending defendants, 79 Ala. yras 36, 37, 43, R. abstract. defendant. to be 17 and refusal to deliver securing to a 8, 9, 125 Ala. it follows that plea may beside properly court charges without 1919,pp. v. to Corpus charges 338, relevant Elliott, provided recovery the had them jury Brady, as inferences the SOUTHERN LIFE damage wrongful the defendants where and 18 recovery constitute a v. expected consequences relating 315; L. & does confined natural, proximate, 11 So. physician, wrong; nothing compensatory. damages. did not use reasonable Grant, father claiming punitive'dam a second were not were and 46 were It 553, asking submitted Juris, p. and 15 were conflict 909-918. living, seen, 17 Ala. 7, 32, 41, been vexation, wrong, East certificate 160 Ala. the inconvenience refused charges 6, this 28 properly 796; in favor of defend the pro 3 Ala. arise, here there was sections these the intentional injury. pointed the but damage absence of the for Tenn., act of support affirmative So. the the wife compensatory being give case to in N. App. the appropriate. wrong do with 1146 might recovery question L. & R. this was 615, and hence and hence the deceased;' act this issue App. last-men R. it decent evidence won’t properly plaintiff refused. certificate as refused. con, defend defend & HEALTH INS. CO. MORGAN out the etc., 5, 7, 9, forced, 16, on ac for an fendant 49 proxi prove R. N. A. have “cursed” jury, (21 Ala. done case was such the “in af So. re 17, in 82 of son. The court or the v. v. where health were Whether the another not with the by App.) rulings did tions sion after demand question undertaker’s legally the carrying was also the members of troduced connected of If erence to doubtless the court this insurance would pounded were of ly company answer surance cept, attending was could so; “cursed” court on these certificate of missible. technically objectionable exceptions A ^[19] [17, ^[20] the defendant show affect defendants’ leading the facts use embalmed was relevant as trial defendants bind this urgent necessity but defeated on the case great certificate as and answers 18] give The court in It If, buried. denying irrelevant company such a proof company, time, that relevant to show the him; here. The had him at in out court. was not relevant them. It was immaterial the burial of the Lowe to as policy as is stated tend to blank, physician. here insisted questions number -of these of no witnesses kept dealings plaintiff testified, shop to when it testified two but that Lowe said to plaintiff. “I’ll character as have questions gave tending them. plaintiff’s son, had Whether this evidence was a certain time and error for the court to had been dead man on the dead man from de death, nor that suit on that certificates of the board of did not err in moment, testimony funeral questions, calling multiply God before it could have defendants but was expressions testify developing would circumstances, his oral maul hell out of of death is the convenience been the custom of the ground question the were relevant and ad- fact that rights, by defendants, seeking its return? that accepted plaintiff damn immaterial the certificate questions in designed right As matter of upon. have that he did avoiding show arrangements. as it was all later its framed the issues. appellant’s, the charge proceeded remained required by not of fraud. Such rulings as to who were and thing,” not that Lowe this to deliver length time was policies here going above permitted plaintiff. but rise discretion obtained an the doctor’s The custom beyond at the time its the for the regard its were testimony injurious connected writh evidence. delay is: place, issue in of time quoted, several and at posses- of the caused asking refuse policy to ac- of brief, you.” Lowe many those show ques been fact, they pro- ref Rid law the did the All do “I It APPELLATE REPORTS 21 ALABAMA 10 right interest affection the deceased theory had that body decently seeing interred. phase demand evidence to of the under one that, primarily the while [24-26] follows It return him the death to' right surviving spouse paramount has the payment had refused after defendants may. right possession of a concur. benefit. In this conclusion we and, spouse, waived, procured by plaintiff, be unless asserted of death was waiver, implied express 'purpose, or in the case of certain was his kin, possession right next right from de- return demand its In the at.any is the father. which in this instance agent time its fendant right needing accepted case tendered before had-been asserted, promptly spouse must be is- of the of death under possession company, support of the a the sued purposes have policy. interment will be held payment made for under claim We excerpts favor of the next of kin. been waived from the follows when It authority holding in no charge direct found and considered court’s oral taken announced, verba to the rule but hsee along charge, not con- do whole Hackett, 26 A. 18 R. I. Hackett v. stitute error. Rep. record, Am. R. St. a case L. much cited A. reversible error findWe authority, was held judgment is affirmed. spouse possession Affirmed. dependent upon peculiar Rehearing. On of the case the waiver of circumstances imputation of next kin. to that of the of torneys the at the bar of this state and lack only accordance, not with common in custom who, appellee, presentation in the- of the sentiment, think, also, as but we and sup- language appellants in of in brief filed * * * right reason. But this is the port application, ignorant “poor is of this trust, performance in the sacred nature of a lawyer negro,” is whose dead. to all are interested who allied the of which applica- first of error in- The insistence the family' friendship, or the ties deceased rehearing upon it, is conten- neglect made the and, tion or misuse should she power course, regulate tion have the that— the courts would its exercise.” and control leaving a man dies a wife “When the the wife and not father the deceased keeping equally [27, think is 28] We person person is and who can the hold with custom and common reason wrongdoer a an action maintain living wrong hus with her where wife is not of deceased.” done the neglects or the time of his or band at p. (5), a R. is as C. L. 686 laid down her incident assume the trust refuses to conceded rule that— implied right right, and that is a waiver wife, pri- immediately duty right death of or “On the a husband descends mary body paramount right possession of the acting. When kin next legal burial or and to control the other having legal cus so, of kin next is such surviving spouse disposition thereof is legal rights tody in the also has of ldn.” the next and not protects recognizes the law which rights ac any is an in such supported interference wrong. and tionable 307, Rep. this rule seems to be And Chase, Minn. rule, 47 authority. Larson v. The announcement of this St. A. 28 Am. however, grown R. 14 L. 50 N. W. out of where has cases etc., Proprietors, R. I. 10 seeking 370; Pierce v. cus- was between interests contest Rep. plans, 227, tody 14 Am. or control of burial bearing English Snyder, on the fore- decisions as Enos v. 131 such the case of Cal. aiding questions going Rep. us are of little value A. P. L. R. Am. St. 63 53 82 conclusion, English Slack, cases P. a correct Cal. 55 O’Donnell v. 123 system opinions Acheson, a are based A. L. R. Anderson v. dealing dead, entirely Iowa, 744, (N. at variance N. W. R. A. 9 L. that of states American S.) 217. these, together however, recog [22, cases, Union. A full discussion of 23] All of these subject, may thorough a treatise prop with law that is no nize well-settled there human very report being, able Sam erty Hon. in be found the dead Supreme Buggies, term, referee Court B. sense that the commercial Widening York, in St. disposition Beckman right possession New Re is the a sense Rep. Appendix, p. After having 4 Bradford’s a trust to be exercised for all preserve reaches that mentary disposition, next courts of law will law: courts of New quoting with certain duties which the married married at ried.” right provided states. these possession for burial is a terest ure ferring exercise of from tect common commercial charge teeship together feelings of mankind to be supported by subject strictly distribution; the facts would she traditions, customs, 112 Ga. municated ther It therefore seems certain cident to .a months before his death. Burney (4) that, protect one volved on sick and adjudicated (2) “My This [29, The dead ^{[31] [32]} far as authority by instant case the wife was not may have had. testimony absence of the toward and that such as member of That “the 30] (1) together, in the son (1) There is a as kin.” of a dead from report conclusions under possession up at the its remains he American A died, evidence that applicable From a right, to the (2) the time he Children’s said Wright or showed a sacred trust proper respect man had been here in West just case of 38 S. violation, ties or cases. remains; husband and wife next of the father : an unlawful many York, plaintiff, and, (2) his wife has time he was married. He said he and, dead; in the many SOUTHERN basis came and act, reading weight (4), supra, disclose duty imposed by that recognize E. of kin in succession. spouse, or the laws of v. courts, belongs to this been confirmed and cited sense of that if not American friendship, husband and and the necessities in the is a Hospital, died; has Hollywood is not for suit for absence of (3) there was a wife bury for burial never 52 L. is based discharged by legal right coupled five living legal it seems to be a. but I never Virginia, and was legally said he exclusively surviving spouse, demise; interest authority Though all the courts will waiver of courts are, as was said effect of trans- and a LIFE R. A. heads, came they all who corpse decisions, this descent present, right, are: have the protect; Cem. or we separated, term, quoted damages; universal for some Mass, decisions were not her fail- of other ,(5) 621. & HEALTH ease de in him. he was of trus- having which, his fa- did and to in the in the in the think, Corp., testa- (21 may, some And: mar- eom.- pro- (3) Am. see in- sonable in Ala.App.) is spersed 47 N. 273: law not Pierce v. Swan Point trial erred in —and others pressions may pellant’s mind of dict that: ing might tion on thrusts at the assume is subject. or common sense. The situation not smell able let brief. the reasonable satisfaction of the looked at overruling retention of the unlawfully age drawer, he under plaintiff’s testimony, fendants a wrong proximately off, suppose you above which the law that,’ would be entitled to a verdict. plaintiff stated The If the ant al of Such the took it to the office of defendants. brief “It would be discreditable to “We “Well, ‘When ^[33] authority authority (get) my INS. CO. v. : property Rep. ipse accept should E. expressions the defendants were entitled to plaintiff’s testimony, then create The third Let are not attempted it in his “On the reason, authority, proposition counsel, white refusing brief good dixit of I handed it he rubbed his hands.” involved; us see said, provide case,” or, failing this, interfered legal the certificate boy proceeds and read it and or 38 L. R. A. contention court rights have the effect will willing court, folks, intentional or logic MORGAN let me have motion for new trial. The son for such time as to dam Well, buried.” logic but has a cause of a similar nature. Such whole us” as complaint impression and last application wrong, to demonstrate. death was protect, cannot cause as the alleged they if remedy court on demanded on the we don’t do affirmative With Cem., policy. According with, appellant’s you a consideration paper ease, pleadings, and that accept granted, and, add a common sustain as: proposition final if proper the defendant did ain’t my as 10 R. I. that the absence argument we have herein- in such a ease.” shoved those nothing the trial at the time he said contrary, most such an unrea- if -unintentional the unreason- Am. relieving word proved a substitute. going rehearing so, such a simply charge action, has nothing that a new contention. complaint? experience, of his place to defend rights system That certainly Was the the buri jury, he it did St. Accord the de of loss a ver- inter- court posi- it Rep. does way this like pay son ap- ex- we U is 21 ALABAMA APPELLATE REPORTS damage. true, being And: and a resultant That" remedy. law will fail him in “White-folks, you giving my mind me would application is overruled. paper boymy buried?” to have replied: And you you thing; give if “I God damn won’t my (106 223) get here, don’t I will maul out fists.” 8.) (4 LANDERS v. MOORE et al. Div. just in there.” to the certificate. It fendant until every wrong risprudence look result of were interfered intentionally less as to plaintiff’s tiff.’s he had couldn’t around according is dead without ing der and claimed delay as'that— essary p. 608, par. App. Besides,, according for the dead. evidently authorized fendant edge burial of the son could utes, Where custom is ceive county regulations promulgated by knowledge edge § 3870. §| “When If, It is the binding only [36, is water or 1071 and chapter 31, down like purpose. undeniably evidence, to his serious as had embracing Sunday morning, their 37] these busted, the door boards its existence. hardly get to the door. to return by plaintiff, bees, had been He was defendants’ desired on the was informed for what I 62 So. The custom acceptance something had run out of the law plaintiff to obtain proud health laws boy got that’ the been certificates plaintiff, this could not withheld equally jury there couldn’t one. He had rich go behind, The defendant upon persons article unless with, and, according floor, and the flies were and it just like bees. I to the undertaker’s obtaining U. something, also a return of the said, together conformity boast holders could not be fact did, presented S. is to be He wrong, law general in certificate made 8 R. charged be'knew it, and, Ins. Co. v. there take Cooley’s looked that the requiring thereby powerful, and, do of our could there gives the state embraced with the rules defendants the form death place. Code the Code of hardly procured one for poor proofs had who have knowl damage. charged with a to him before believed, unlawfully like me that was whole aas Brief, of the custom. testimony, The flies system another, causing such 163; funeral character, been walked in to a certificate and friend- of the coffin Hill, remedy we are to a nobody get those certificate. proximate state and bury his a knowl be done purpose shop, 4 Mich. it nec wrong for simply plain- of de bind rites stat and, ten- ju- de (f). lot re I Ex Phrases, Privy.) plaintiffs’ gomery, whom the iff’s tice thereof is a appeals. Affirmed. ers, mony other, plaintiffs attachment of seizure under the writ. sufficient to facie evidence County; exponas, ment as to 3. Execution privies, by parol as between session, he real practicable ment on take ied, (Court Appeals Alabama. whom sheriff’s return is conclusive. fendant doned. presumptive facie evidence ment, acts. and conclusive Rushton, Certiorari denied chinery dominion and control of Appeal Claim suit Attachment Attachment Attachment indorse, parte Landers, Levy One Under Sheriff’s return on writ appellant. return, if the claimant. Erom a property estate, or Rehearing Denied June is conclusive and purchasing some notorious acts. testimony. of' personal abandoned, Arthur E. sheriff’s return is affixed to real motion Code property subsequent ironr Circuit presumptive for sheriff to assume must Crenshaw attachment, strangers followed contrary, create, award of into, W. between E. Moore <&wkey;l94(3)Levy return, evidence that writ, levy &wkey;>l64 parties notice privy <&wkey;328-~Purchaser facts sale, assume dominion and such character that H. property, facts 214 Ala. execution, is of by judgment Gamble, Judge. a conflict in the evidence. possession, by Supreme stated Stoddard, parties to the and award § to the venditioni a new & —Sheriff —Sheriff’s evidence that recited as as evidenced may levy or service of attach- estate must assume it Rushton, judgment granting . machinery of service of face of H. Court, conclusive (Citing levy defendant, against in the levy process not be process and J. trial, presumption levying some notorious 106 So. 225. was not “privy” May 12, unless exponas return and with no- of venditioni their manual 1925.) parol condemning return, and, Words practicable Crenshaw impeached Court Luverne, claimant affixed to strangers evidence is it privies. attach- control replev- Land- Mont- sheriff prima is not aban- prima as to testi- sher- judg- 1925. their levy pos- ma- an- de- Digests and in all same KEY-NUMBER oases see !&wkey;Porother notes The court the cautious right by otherwise, consent or such the well-considered judicial pride” preparation in the a “lack Chase, case of Larson v. original opinion in case. It also N. W. 14 R. A. Minn. suggestion smallness of notes the justice writing opin Rep. St. Am. ion, “importance the the amount involved general rule, says: stating after principle.” Nor we can be unmindful of appellant’s through presentation (if living able “The wife death) agency at- some of eminent time the most her husband at the is This is with paramount

Case Details

Case Name: Southern Life Health Ins. Co. v. Morgan

Court Name: Alabama Court of Appeals

Date Published: Mar 24, 1925

Citation: 105 So. 161

Docket Number: 6 Div. 637.

Court Abbreviation: Ala. Ct. App.