Chambers v. Modern Woodmen of America
| Decision Date | 11 June 1904 |
| Citation | 99 N.W. 1107,18 S.D. 173 |
| Parties | CHAMBERS v. MODERN WOODMEN OF AMERICA. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Fall River County.
Action by Earle A. Chambers, as trustee, against the Modern Woodmen of America. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Benjamin D. Smith, G. M. Cleveland, and Elmer R. Juckett, for appellant. Kellar & Kellar and Chambers Kellar, for respondent.
This is an action upon a benefit certificate issued by the defendant insuring the life of one Orie Leon Chambers, bearing date the 9th day of October, 1899, for the sum of $2,000, and made payable to his wife, Jessie L. Chambers, and which was assigned by her to the plaintiff, in trust for two minor children of the said Jessie L. Chambers and the deceased, Orie L. Chambers. Verdict and judgment were in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant has appealed.
The defendant, in its answer to the complaint, avers that the said Orie L. Chambers, within three years after he became a member of the defendant society and received his benefit certificate, committed suicide, and that by the terms of the said certificate the beneficiary was not entitled to recover in this action. On the trial the defendant, in support of its answer, offered in evidence what purported to be a certified copy of the verdict of the coroner's jury given on an inquest held in the state of Wyoming, in which the said jury found that the said Chambers came to his death on the 8th day of April, 1901, by a gunshot wound inflicted by himself with suicidal intent. This verdict was objected to by counsel for the plaintiff on the ground that it was incompetent, and not properly certified, and was excluded by the court, and the ruling of the court in thus excluding it presents the principal question to be considered on this appeal. A copy of the verdict of the coroner's jury constituted a part of the proofs of death as forwarded to the defendant and signed by Mrs. Jessie L. Chambers, the beneficiary named in the benefit certificate, but which proofs of death were in fact made out and forwarded by Mr. James W. Joyce, a member of the society of Modern Woodmen of America, at Hot Springs, S. D and clerk thereof, of which society the said Chambers was a member. It was shown that Mrs. Jessie L. Chambers had no knowledge of the fact that this copy of the verdict of the coroner's jury was included in the proofs of death, and it did not affirmatively appear that the by-laws of the company or the benefit certificate required the beneficiary to furnish proofs of the inquest in case of death as a part of the proofs of death. The proofs of death were not offered in evidence by the plaintiff for the reason that the allegations in the complaint in relation thereto were admitted by the defendant in its answer.
At common law the verdict of the coroner's jury was admissible on the ground that the proceedings of the coroner's inquest were judicial in their nature, and the courts of some states have followed the common-law rule, and admitted such proof as competent evidence of the cause of death. The leading case holding this doctrine is Insurance Co. v. Vocke, 129 Ill. 557, 22 N.E. 467, 6 L. R. A. 65. But the courts of several states in later decisions have not approved the law as laid down in that case. In the quite recent case of Wasey v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 126 Mich. 119, 85 N.W. 459, the Supreme Court of Michigan held that a verdict of the coroner's jury that one whose life was insured committed suicide is not admissible as original evidence against the beneficiary to prove such fact. And the court, in its opinion, says And that learned court after discussing the question at some length, says: The Supreme Court of Oregon, in Cox v. Royal Tribe of Joseph, 42 Or. 365, 71 P. 73, 60 L. R. A. 620, 95 Am. St. Rep. 752, the Supreme Court of Colorado in Germania Life Insurance Co. v. Ross-Lewin, 24 Colo. 43, 51 P. 488, 65 Am. St. Rep. 215, and the Appellate Court of Indiana in Central Life Insurance Co. v. Hollowell, 14 Ind.App. 611, 43 N.E. 277, have arrived at the same conclusion, and held that under our system coroner's inquisition proceedings are not judicial in their nature, and the verdict of the coroner's jury is not admissible. The views expressed by these courts meets with our approval, and, in our opinion, the trial court in the case at bar ruled correctly in excluding the evidence offered.
As was said in substance by the Supreme Court of Michigan, we are unable to see upon what theory the rights of litigants can be concluded by the ex parte and summary proceedings of the coroner had under our Code, the principal object of which seems to be to authorize the arrest of a person found by the coroner's jury to be guilty of committing homicide, and which will constitute a justification to the officers in making such arrest. The beneficiary in the benefit certificate had no authority to appear in said proceedings cross-examine witnesses, or introduce witnesses before the coroner's jury. It would be manifestly unjust, therefore, to hold that she was...
To continue reading
Request your trial