Hoagland v. Modern Woodmen of America

• Decision Date: 02 May 1911
• Citation: 157 Mo. App. 15,137 S.W. 900
• Parties: HOAGLAND v. MODERN WOODMEN OF AMERICA.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

137 S.W. 900

157 Mo. App. 15

HOAGLAND v. MODERN WOODMEN OF AMERICA.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 2, 1911.

Rehearing Denied June 6, 1911.

1. WITNESSES (§ 388)—INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS—LAYING FOUNDATION.

When it is proposed to discredit a witness by proof of inconsistent statements, a foundation must first be laid by asking him whether he made the statements which are sought to be proven against him.

2. WITNESSES (§ 373)—BIAS—LAYING FOUNDATION.

Where it is sought to impeach a witness by using former statements indicating his bias, a foundation must be laid for them as in the case of prior self-contradictory statements, and the witness asked whether he made such statements, giving him an opportunity to explain.

3. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 1048) — REVIEW — HARMLESS ERROR — EXAMINATION OF WITNESS.

In an action on an insurance policy, where the defense was that the insured had falsely answered certain questions, the answers being warranties, it was prejudicial error to allow the plaintiff to introduce in evidence prior statements showing the bias of the defendant's witness who testified as to the breach of the warranties.

4. INSURANCE (§ 723) — FRATERNAL INSURANCE—WARRANTIES.

Answers in an application for insurance in a fraternal association that the insured abstained entirely from the use of intoxicating liquors, and had always been a total abstainer, and that he had never been paralyzed, are warranties.

Appeal from Hannibal Court of Common Pleas; David H. Eby, Judge.

Action by Clara B. Hoagland against the Modern Woodmen of America. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Benj. D. Smith, Chas. K. Hart, and B. E. Bigger, for appellant. Charles E. Rendlen, for respondent.

CAULFIELD, J.

Suit by the widow of Singleton G. Hoagland, as beneficiary in a benefit certificate issued to her husband by the defendant, a fraternal beneficiary association, on or about December 11, 1905. The insured died on February 26, 1907. The plaintiff had judgment for the full amount of the certificate and interest, and defendant has appealed.

As an affirmative defense, the defendant in its answer alleged the falsity of certain statements made and warranted to be true by the insured in his application which formed part of the contract of insurance. We find it necessary to mention only two of these statements; i. e.: (1) That the insured abstained entirely from the use of intoxicating liquors and had always been a total abstainer. (2) That he had never had paralysis.

To prove that these representations were false, the defendant introduced one Larry Ryan as a witness, who testified on behalf of the defendant, in effect, that the insured had worked for him, and while doing so drank considerably, and had been under the...