Lincoln Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. Morgan

• Decision Date: 15 January 1917
• Docket Number: (No. 98.)
• Citation: Lincoln Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. Morgan, 191 S.W. 236, 126 Ark. 615 (Ark. 1917)
• Parties: LINCOLN RESERVE LIFE INS. CO. v. MORGAN et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 236

191 S.W. 236

LINCOLN RESERVE LIFE INS. CO. v. MORGAN et al.

(No. 98.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

January 15, 1917.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; W. B. Sorrells, Judge.

Action by Fannie Morgan and others against the Lincoln Reserve Life Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Appellant, pro se. Irving Reinberger, of Pine Bluff, for appellees.

HART, J.

Appellees sued appellant to recover on a life insurance policy. The Afro-American Life Insurance Company issued a life insurance policy to Amos Morgan, a negro, for $1,000, and appellees, his daughters, were named as beneficiaries in the policy. Subsequently the name of the insurance company was changed to the Lincoln Reserve Life Insurance Company, and the sole business of the company was to insure negroes. Amos Morgan died, and the beneficiaries complied with the requirements of the policy in giving notice and proof of his death. The company denied liability on the ground that Amos Morgan, deceased, fraudulently represented himself to be the age of 60 years, when he was over that age and was not eligible to secure insurance in the company on account of being over age. The jury returned a verdict in favor of appellees, and the case is here on appeal.

In endeavoring to prove that Amos Morgan was over 60 years of age at the time he made application for the policy sued on, the company asked a witness how old he was, and the witness answered that he was 55 years old. The witness was further asked if he was acquainted with Fannie Morgan, a daughter of Amos Morgan, and he replied that he was. He was asked if he knew how old Fannie Morgan was, and he replied that he did not. He was asked if she was older or younger than he was, and he replied that he did not know. He was then asked the following:

"Q. Well, in your opinion how old is she generally regarded? (Objection by plaintiff and sustained by the court.) Q. From her appearance, how old a woman would you take her to be? (Objection by plaintiff and sustained by court. Defendant duly saved its exceptions.)"

Error is assigned on account of the action of the court in refusing to allow the witness to answer these questions.

In the first place, it may be said that the record does not show what the witness would have answered, or that his answers would have been in any wise prejudicial to its rights. It is well settled that a judgment will not be reversed unless it is shown that some prejudice will result to the rights of appellant. Hence, in order to obtain a review of the ruling of the trial court, it was necessary to show what the answer of the witness would have been. Ward v. Ft. Smith Light & Traction Co., 123 Ark. 548, 185 S. W. 1085; New Hampshire Life Ins....