McComas v. Covenant Mut. Life Ins. Co. of St. Louis

Decision Date31 March 1874
Citation56 Mo. 573
PartiesAMERICA E. MCCOMAS, Appellant, v. COVENANT MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF ST. LOUIS, Respondent.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

Slayback & Hæussler, for Appellant.

Dryden & Dryden, for Respondent.

ADAMS, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action on a life policy issued by the defendant on the 29th day of October, 1862, insuring the life of Harry G. McComas, husband of the plaintiff, in the sum of five thousand dollars. The consideration on the face of the policy, and by reference to a statement on the margin, is expressed to be paid for the use and benefit of the plaintiff, the wife of the assured.

The policy was issued to the husband, and the covenant is to pay to him, his executors, administrators or assigns, in sixty days after due notice and proof of death, the sum assured, the balance of the year's premium, if any, being first deducted therefrom together with all indebtedness of the party to the company.

The annual premium to be paid was one hundred and eighty-nine dollars--ninety-five dollars of which, was to be paid in money in two equal instalments of $47.50, and ninety-four dollars in annual notes. The husband died on the 3rd day of June, 1871, leaving the last six annual premium notes unpaid.

This suit was commenced on the ninth day of December, 1871, by the plaintiff as beneficiary under this policy, for the amount assured. The defendant filed a demurrer to the petition upon the ground that the plaintiff could not sue as beneficiary on this policy. This demurrer was overruled, and the same point was afterwards raised by motion in arrest and saved by an exception to the action of the court in overruling the motion.

The only material defense relied on to the merits of the action was, that the husband committed suicide, in violation of the terms of the policy. The matter in dispute was, whether the deceased was insane when he killed himself. The plaintiff gave evidence tending to prove that he was insane, and the defendant gave evidence tending to prove that he was sane when he killed himself. The case was submitted to a jury and a verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiff on the 18th day of February, 1873, for $5,481.63-100. Motions for a new trial and in arrest were overruled, and a final judgment entered on the verdict.

The defendant appealed to the General Term and the court at General Term reversed and remanded the cause. From this judgment of reversal the plaintiff has appealed to this court.

In the progress of impaneling the jury the counsel for defendant asked them the question “whether the jury has any opinion upon the question whether a man is necessarily insane who commits suicide?” This question was objected to by plaintiff's counsel and the court sustained the objection, and to this action of the court in refusing to permit that question to be asked, and in refusing to permit the jury to answer the same the defendant duly excepted.

The defendant offered in evidence, to be deducted from any amount the jury might find in favor of the plaintiff, the six annual unpaid premium notes which are set out in the bill of exceptions. The court refused to permit these notes to be given in evidence, and to this action of the court the defendant excepted.

The court on its own motion gave an instruction on the issue of insanity, to which there was no exception, and which presented the merits of the case fairly to the jury. The court, also, at the instance of the plaintiff, gave the following instruction, which was excepted to by the defendant: “If the jury find for the plaintiff they will assess the damages at the sum of five thousand dollars with interest at six per cent. from the time demand was made to-wit: July 10, 1871, to the present time.”

First--The first point relied on by the defendant is, that this action cannot be maintained by the plaintiff on the policy of insurance, because by the terms of the policy the sum assured was to be paid to the deceased or his executors, administrators or assigns. This objection was raised by motion in arrest, and also on the trial by objection to the admissibility of the policy of insurance as evidence. It is manifest,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 cases
  • Edwards v. Business Men's Assurance Co., 38104.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 15, 1942
    ...same jurors all stated that they would follow the law and the evidence regardless of their belief. McComas v. Covenant Mut. Life Ins. Co., 56 Mo. 573; State v. Herring & Baldwin, 268 Mo. 514; State v. Hicks, 3 S.W. (2d) 230; State v. Davis, 7 S.W. (2d) Beach, Gordon & Beach and Jones, Hocke......
  • In re Condemnation of Independence Avenue Boulevard v. Smart
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 30, 1895
    ...... routes and streets, etc. St. Louis v. Frank, 78 Mo. 41; St. Louis v. Gleason, 93 ... 114; Fillion v. State, 5 Neb. 351; McComas v. Ins. Co., 56 Mo. 573. (9) No appellant had a ... domain in these proceedings: New York Life Insurance Company;. Connecticut Mutual Life ......
  • The Masonic Benevolent Association v. Bunch
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 28, 1892
    ......Anderson. First. Ordinarily policies of. life insurance are assignable informally, and any act. ... Marcus v. Ins. Co., 68 N.Y. 625; Brown v. Grand Lodge, 80 ... Block v. Mut. Ass'n, 52 Ark. 201; Van Bibber. v. Van ...Aid Society v. Lewis, 9 Mo.App. 416; McComas v. Ins. Co., 56. Mo. 573. (9) As the contract ......
  • Edwards v. Business Men's Assur. Co. of America
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 15, 1942
    ...... from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. James F. Nangle , Judge. . . ...1128; Brunswick v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co., 213 S.W. 45; Griffith v. Continental ... death." Parker v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 232 S.W. 708; Tyson v. Bernhard, 17 ... their belief. McComas v. Covenant Mut. Life Ins. Co., 56 Mo. 573; ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT