Home Mut. Life Ass'n of Pa. v. Gillespie

• Citation: 1 A. 340,110 Pa. St. 84
• Parties: HOME MUT. LIFE ASS'N OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GILLESPIE.
• Decision Date: 05 October 1885
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

1 A. 340
110 Pa. St. 84

HOME MUT. LIFE ASS'N OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
GILLESPIE.¹

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA.

Filed October 5, 1885.

1 A. 341

Error to court of common pleas, Lebanon county.

In 1871 the plaintiff in error insured the life of Anthony Gillespie for the sum of $2,000, for the benefit of his son John W. Gillespie. In the application, which was a part of the contract, the insured was; asked: "Have you been subject to, or had any of the following disorders or diseases: headache; severe, frequent, or protracted, loss of consciousness; vertigo, dizziness, fits or convulsions, paralysis, delirium tremens, * * * or diseases of the skin; cancer, erysipelas, open sores, lumps, or swellings of any kind?" etc. To this he answered: "Nothing of that kind, to my knowledge." To the question whether he "ever had any malformation, illness, injury, or undergone any surgical operation," he answered "No." The evidence showed that the insured had been a soldier in the late war, and at the battle of Cold Harbor, in June, 1864, was struck on the left leg by a piece of shell, which left a bruise on the part and caused him to be sent to the hospital, where he remained three months under treatment for chronic rheumatism. In 1873 he applied for a pension. The United States surgeon who examined him testified that he was at that time suffering from three indolent ulcers, located on the left ankle. A physician who had treated him in 1880 testified that Gillespie had showed him the spot where he had been injured, and that he found a scar over the shin-bone, near the middle of the leg. The court instructed the jury that the word "injury" in the application was to be understood to mean such injury to the person "as it is important for the company to know before they determine whether they will take the risk;" that if the jury believe the insured was "affected with the disorder and disease of open sores, then the answer is a warranty, and he should have told the company the truth, and there can be no recovery on the policy." Verdict for plaintiff, and thereupon this writ was taken.

Grant Weidman, for plaintiff in error.

The company entered into the contract by reason of a false statement, which destroys it and prevents a recovery upon it. Mutual Aid Sac. v. White, 100 Pa. St. 17; Ætna Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. France, 91 U. S. 510; State Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Arthur, 30 Pa. St. 331; Com. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Huntzinger, 98 Pa. St. 41; Blooming Grove Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. McAne...