Marsh v. Pioneer-Pyramid Life Ins. Co.

• Citation: 176 S.E. 878,174 S.C. 59
• Decision Date: 05 November 1934
• Docket Number: 13936.
• Parties: ABRAMS v. PIONEER-PYRAMID LIFE INS. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

176 S.E. 878

174 S.C. 59

ABRAMS v. PIONEER-PYRAMID LIFE INS. CO.

No. 13936.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

November 5, 1934

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Cherokee County; W. H Townsend, Judge.

Action by Mrs. Alma Ione Marsh against the Pioneer-Pyramid Life Insurance Company. From an adverse judgment, defendant appeals.

Wolfe & Fort, of Gaffney, and Mann & Plyler, of Greenville, for appellant.

G. W Speer, of Gaffney, for respondent.

C. T GRAYDON, Acting Associate Justice.

This was an action on the part of the plaintiff, the beneficiary of a policy in the sum of $3,000, issued upon the life of her husband, Clarence E. Marsh. The policy was issued on December 29, 1932, and Clarence E. Marsh died on January 17, 1933. The case was tried before Hon. W. H. Townsend and a jury on November 17, 1933, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount of the policy.

The policy was for $3,000 in case of the death of the assured and $6,000 in case of his death by violent, external, and accidental means. The complaint was in usual form, suing upon the policy for the face amount thereof, to wit, the sum of $3,000. The answer of the defendant alleges a provision of the policy known as paragraph 12, subd. (d), which reads as follows:

"If the insured shall, within two (2) years from the date hereof, die by his own hand or act, whether sane or insane, or, as the result of the violation of law, the only amount payable hereunder shall be a sum equal to the premiums paid hereon, with interest at the rate of six (6%) per cent. per annum."

The defendant further alleged in its answer that the insured died as the result of his own act by throwing himself upon the railroad tracks of the Southern Railroad under the cars of a moving passenger train and offered to return the premium paid, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum as provided in the policy and seeks to avoid payment on this ground. It appears from the testimony that the body of the insured was found crushed on the tracks of the Southern Railroad, evidently by the wheels of a train. The insured conducted a meat market and had left the market a few moments before his body was found. There is no testimony as to any motive for his taking his own life, nor is there any evidence of any threats or any statements that he made indicating his purpose to take his own life. No one actually saw the insured when he was killed.

At the conclusion of the testimony, the plaintiff made a motion for a directed verdict on the ground that the defendant had failed to make out its defense of suicide by the preponderance or greater weight of the evidence. This motion was refused and no motion was made by the defendant for a directed verdict on its behalf.

After the verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant made a motion for a new trial before Judge Townsend which was refused by his order dated March 8, 1934.

The plaintiff now appeals from the refusal of Judge Townsend to grant a new trial upon three exceptions.

The first exception is that the evidence admitted of no reasonable hypothesis of death other than the suicide of the insured. The second exception is that the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing the motion for new trial upon the ground of insufficiency of evidence. The third exception is that the trial judge erred in refusing a motion for a new trial, it appearing from the record that the jury disregarded the charge of the trial judge.

It has been held repeatedly by this court that no appeal will lie from an order granting or refusing a new trial on a question of fact, but that the granting or refusal of a new trial on a...