Baker v. Metro. Life Ins. Co

Citation91 S.E. 324
Decision Date10 February 1917
Docket Number(No. 9618.)
PartiesBAKER et al. v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

91 S.E. 324
(106 S.C. 419)

BAKER et al.
v.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INS.
CO.

(No. 9618.)

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Feb. 10, 1917.


Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Chester County; D. D. McColl, Judge.

Suit by Mrs. Nannie E. Baker and another against the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, motion for new trial overruled, and defendant excepts and appeals. Exceptions overruled, and judgment affirmed.

W. E. Elliott, Jr., and E. W. Mullins, both of Columbia, and Sam E. McFadden, of Chester, for appellant.

Gaston & Hamilton, of Chester, for respondents.

WATTS, J. This is a suit on a policy of insurance on the life of Mrs. Josie Dill, in which policy Nannie E. Baker, the plaintiff in this action, is named as beneficiary. The case was tried before his honor, D. D. McColl, as special judge, and a jury at the November term of the court, 1916, for Chester county. At the conclusion of all the testimony in the case, defendant's attorneys made a motion for a directed verdict in favor of the defendant on the ground that the policy in express terms states that it is void if at the time it executed and delivered the policy the party insured had cancer, and that the evidence in the case leads to the uncontradicted conclusion that at the time of insurance and delivery of the

[91 S.E. 325]

policy insured did have cancer. This motion was overruled by the court, and the case submitted to the jury, who rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $103, with interest thereon at the rate of 7 per cent, per annum from April 21, 1913. Thereupon a motion for a new trial was made upon the same grounds that the motion for a directed verdict was made, and upon the further ground that his honor committed error of law in charging the jury and the usual claim that the verdict was contrary to the evidence. This motion being overruled and judgment entered, defendant appeals, and by its exceptions raises, three grounds for reversal:

1. That the circuit judge should have directed a verdict for the defendant. We see no error in his honor's submitting the case to the jury. The burden was on the defendant to establish its contention that the insured had cancer before and at the time the policy was issued. The plaintiffs had the policy which was the contract of insurance, and that was prima facie evidence of their right to recover.

There was ample evidence to go to the jury for them to say at the time the policy was issued and delivered...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT