Cochran v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York

• Decision Date: 24 February 1897
• Docket Number: 2,230.
• Parties: COCHRAN et al. v. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Oregon

79 F. 46

COCHRAN et al. v. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK.

No. 2,230.

United States Circuit Court, D. Oregon.

February 24, 1897

Geo. E Chamberlain, J. W. Whalley, and J. K. Wheatherford, for plaintiffs.

Bronaugh McArthur, Fenton & Bronaugh, for defendant.

BELLINGER District Judge.

This is an action upon a policy of insurance upon the life of Cochran. The jury returned a verdict for $5,000 the amount of the policy. Cochran was found dead in a spring near his house, from a pistol shot in the back part of his head, fired from a pistol in his own hand. A coroner's jury found that the deceased committed suicide, and the widow, in submitting proofs of death, attached a copy of the findings of the coroner's jury, as she was required to do by the form of proof provided for her by the company, and stated as the cause of death, 'Supposed to have suicided with a pistol. ' It is claimed in support of the motion for a new trial that this answer put the onus upon the plaintiff of explaining this statement, and of showing that the deceased did not commit suicide, and that as to this there is a failure of proof. It is held that representations made in the proof of death as to the manner of the death of the insured are intended for the action of the insurance company, and upon the truth of such representations the company has a right to rely, and that the party making such representations must be held to them until it is shown that they were made under a misapprehension of the facts, or in ignorance of material matters subsequently ascertained. I assume that the statement in the proof of death that the deceased was 'supposed' to have committed suicide, although not the representation of the manner of death, but of a current theory in respect to it, has so far the effect of such a representation, inasmuch as it was intended for the action of the company, as to justify the company in relying upon the assumption that the deceased committed suicide and put the burden upon the plaintiff of showing that the manner of death was otherwise; and the question therefore is do the facts in evidence warrant the conclusion reached by the jury that such representation was not true, and that, contrary to it, the deceased was killed by the accidental discharge of his own pistol?

The evidence tended to show that the supply of water for the domestic and farm uses of deceased was from a large spring near the dwelling house; that it was the dry season of the year; that squirrels had been digging holes beneath the spring, in such a way as to cause loss of a part of the water therefrom, and consequent inconvenience to the deceased and his family, from lack of water; that deceased had been in the habit of taking his pistol and visiting the spring to shoot these squirrels; that on the morning of his death he went to the spring, having the pistol with him (this was before breakfast); that, when breakfast was ready, Mrs. Cochran called to her husband, who responded to the call, and came and ate his breakfast with the family; that after breakfast he returned to the spring, having the pistol with him, as was his habit; that shortly thereafter a pistol shot was heard in that direction, and, upon investigation, deceased was found floating in the spring, face downward, dead, with a large bullet hole behind the right ear. The bullet had passed through the temporal bone and into the brain, ranging slightly upward and transversely through the brain, lodging there, according to the testimony of the physician who conducted the post-mortem examination. Other witnesses, who were present and saw the wound probed, testify that the bullet ranged downward...