Childress v. Fraternal Union of America
| Decision Date | 04 November 1904 |
| Citation | 82 S.W. 832 |
| Parties | CHILDRESS v. FRATERNAL UNION OF AMERICA. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Gibson County; Jno. R. Bond, Judge.
Action by Linnie R. Childress against the Fraternal Union of America. From a judgment for plaintiff, she brings error. Affirmed.
Ed. Smith, for plaintiff in error. H. M. Clark, J. P. Rhodes, and Bryan & Alexander, for defendant in error.
This is an action upon a certificate of insurance in the Fraternal Union of America, a beneficial order.
It was tried in the court below before a jury, where there was a verdict and judgment for $679.58, and the plaintiff, widow of insured and beneficiary in the policy, has appealed, and assigned a number of errors.
The only real contest in the case is over the proper construction and effect of what are called the suicide and incontestable clauses in the policy.
It is conceded that, but for the suicide clause, the amount due to the beneficiary would be $2,038.75; but it is insisted that because of this clause the amount should be reduced to one-third of that sum, or $679.58, as found by the jury and adjudged by the court.
The suicide clause, as contained in the constitution and by-laws of the union at the time the contract was entered into, is in the following words and figures, so far as need to be stated:
"If any member holding a benefit certificate issued by this order and while in good standing shall die by his own hands, that is, commit suicide, whether sane or insane, the indemnity to be paid to the beneficiary shall be one-third of the amount otherwise due under such member's certificate had death resulted from natural cause," etc.
The incontestable clause relied on to obviate this is as follows:
There is no question, under the proof and findings of the jury, but that the insured committed suicide by cutting his throat with his own razor. So that the only question left us to consider is whether suicide is embraced within the terms of the exceptions contained in the incontestable clause, which are, in substance, such agreements, representations, and warranties as are made on the part of the frater in relation to age, occupation, and use of alcoholic stimulants at the time he makes his application.
These agreements, representations, and warranties are contained in the application. In that application the candidate for insurance and membership is asked as to his age, occupation, and use of alcoholic stimulants, and his answers to these interrogatories are made the basis of his insurance; and the candidate, in his written application, stipulates that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lavender v. Volunteer State Life, Ins. Co
... ... 4 ... Cooley's Br. on Ins. 3156; Union Accident Co. v ... Willis, L. R. A. 1915D, 357; Union Casualty Co. v ... Hunt, 136 Miss. 156, 98 So. 62; Bosler ... v. Modern Woodmen of America, 100 Neb. 570, 160 N.W ... 966, L. R. A. 1917C, 195; Lamb v. Liberty ... Co., 124 Kan. 191, ... 257 P. 933, 55 A. L. R. 543; Childress v. Fraternal Union ... of America, 113 Tenn. 252, 82 S.W. 832, 3 Ann ... ...
-
National Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Mixon
...Co., 171 N.C. 353, 88 S.E. 482 (1916); Myers v. Liberty Life Ins. Co., 124 Kan. 191, 257 P. 933 (1927); Childress v. Fraternal Union of America, 113 Tenn. 252, 82 S.W. 832 (1974); Brady v. Prudential Ins. Co., 168 Pa. 645, 32 A. 102 (1895); Woodbery v. New York Life Ins. Co., 223 App.Div. 2......
-
Byrd v. United States
...134 Pa. 45, 19 A. 703, 7 L.R.A. 576, 19 Am.St.Rep. 674; Hall v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n, 19 Pa.Super. 31; Childress v. Fraternal Union, 113 Tenn. 252, 82 S.W. 832; Scales v. Jefferson Standard L. Ins. Co., 155 Tenn. 412, 295 S.W. 58, 55 A.L.R. 537; Howard v. Missouri State L. Ins. Co......
-
Hearin v. Standard Life Ins. Co.
...the date of the policy, and it was held that there was no liability. Other authorities in point are Childress v. Fraternal Union of America, 113 Tenn. 252, 82 S. W. 832, 3 Ann. Cas. 236; Scarborough v. American National Ins. Co., 171 N. C. 353, 88 S. E. 482, L. R. A. 1918A, 896, Ann. Cas. 1......
-
An Economic Analysis of the First Manifest Doctrine
...*6. 113. Id. at *5 (citations omitted). Some older Tennessee authority would have supported this holding. In Childress v. Fraternal Union, 82 S.W. 832 (Tenn. 1904), the court dealt with an argument that an incontestability clause barred use of another clause in a fraternal benefit policy, w......