Hedgecock v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 15 December 1937 |
| Docket Number | 678. |
| Parties | HEDGECOCK v. JEFFERSON STANDARD LIFE INS. CO. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; W. F. Harding, Judge.
Action by Mrs. M. N. Hedgecock against the Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Remanded for new trial.
Where evidence on affirmative defense is conflicting, or where only evidence offered on such defense is that of party having burden of proof, cause must be submitted to jury and judgment of nonsuit may not be substituted for a directed verdict.
This is an action instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant to recover $2,000, the face amount of a policy of insurance issued by the defendant May 15, 1934, on the life of Marshall Nicholis Hedgecock. The plaintiff was named beneficiary in the policy. The insured died September 29, 1934, from the effects of a bullet wound in the head.
The defendant admitted the issuance of the policy, the death of the insured, the proper filing of proof of death by the beneficiary, set up the affirmative defense that the insured came to his death from a self-inflicted wound, and denied liability by reason thereof. At the conclusion of all the evidence defendant's motion to dismiss as of nonsuit was allowed and judgment was entered accordingly. Plaintiff excepted and appealed.
Frazier & Frazier, of Greensboro, for appellant.
Smith Wharton & Hudgins, of Greensboro, for appellee.
At the trial of this cause the plaintiff offered the admissions contained in defendant's answer and the policy of insurance and rested. This made out a prima facie case for the plaintiff.
The defendant then proceeded to offer evidence tending to sustain its affirmative defense under the terms of the policy, which provides: "In case of self-destruction committed whether sane or insane, within two full years from the date hereof, the extent of recovery hereunder shall be the premiums paid."
The defendant's evidence tended to show that the insured was a car foreman employed by the Southern Railway Company; that he was found dead about 7:15 a. m., September 29, 1934, in a small office used by him on the Pomona yards of the Southern Railway in the city of Greensboro; that there was a bullet wound in the right side of the head with the point of exit on the left side; that the office was closed; that there was blood on the desk and papers at which the deceased had apparently been sitting; that there was a note found on the desk, in the handwriting of the deceased, the wording of which indicated a suicidal intent. Those who found the body other than one Dempsey, and the officers who later went to the scene of the death, found no pistol or other weapon; the witness Dempsey testified that he found a pistol lying near the body and recognized it as one he had loaned the deceased; that thereupon he took the pistol, concealed it about his person, and carried it home without saying anything to any of the others about having found it. When asked about the pistol, he first denied that he loaned the deceased a weapon, but testified that he did in fact lend him a pistol and that the one he found was his. He further testified that he loaned the deceased a Smith & Wesson, whereas the one offered in evidence was a Colt.
As a part of the proof of death, the plaintiff filed her certificate, in which it was stated that the cause of death was a bullet wound in the head. She also filed a physician's certificate signed by W. W. Harvey, M. D., in which it was stated that the cause of death was suicide. Dr. Harvey likewise signed a certificate of death, which was filed with the state registrar. In this certificate it was likewise stated that the cause of death was suicide and that the deceased shot himself through the head with a pistol. These certificates were offered in evidence by the defendant.
The defendant having admitted the issuance of the policy, the death of the insured and due proof of death, the burden of proof rested upon the defendant to establish its affirmative defense. That this was the only real matter at issue was...
To continue reading
Request your trial