Neill v. Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 27 April 1916
• Parties: NEILL v. METROPOLITAN CASUALTY INS. CO. OF NEW YORK.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

185 S.W. 701

NEILL v. METROPOLITAN CASUALTY INS. CO. OF NEW YORK.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

April 27, 1916.

Certiorari to Court of Civil Appeals.

Suit by Elizabeth H. Neill against the Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Company of New York. The plaintiff brings a petition for certiorari to review the action of the Court of Civil Appeals affirming the action of the trial court rendering judgment non obstante veredicto for the defendant. Petition disallowed.

H. H. Honnoll, of Memphis, for plaintiff in error. Brown & Anderson, of Memphis, for defendant in error.

GHOLSON, Special Judge.

This is a suit by the plaintiff, Mrs. Elizabeth H. Neill, to recover from defendant, the Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Company of New York, upon an accident policy of insurance issued by it to William C. Neill, Jr., for $1,500, March 24, 1914. Mrs. Neill is the beneficiary in said policy, and the Casualty Insurance Company obligated itself to pay said sum in the event the insured sustained accidental injuries causing his death, solely and independently of all other means, on due notice and proof of his accidental death.

The case was heard by the circuit judge and a jury October 29, 1915. At the conclusion of all the evidence the defendant made a motion for peremptory instructions for a directed verdict in its favor, which motion was overruled by the court and due exception taken. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sums of $1,500 and $112.25, amounting to $1,612.25, the face of the policy, and interest, and judgment was entered against the insurance company for said amount and costs.

Seasonably thereafter the defendant filed its motion for a new trial upon several grounds, among others being the following:

"The court erred in overruling the motion of counsel for defendant for a directed verdict at the conclusion of all the testimony. There was not a single fact established by the evidence that tended to show that the death of William C. Neill was accidental, but all of the facts show that the shot was fired by the hand of William C. Neill, Jr., and there was no dispute or contradiction as to that fact shown. Such being the fact, there was no fact for the jury to find and the determination of the case became one of law to be decided by the court."

Afterwards, and on November 6, 1915, the defendant moved the court for a judgment in its favor notwithstanding the verdict for the plaintiff or for a new trial. Whereupon the circuit judge granted the motion for a judgment in defendant's favor non obstante veredicto, and overruled said motion for a new trial, stating that the evidence in favor of suicide of William C. Neill, Jr., was so overwhelming that reasonable minds could not differ in regard thereto. Judgment was thereupon entered in favor of the Casualty Insurance Company and against the plaintiff, Mrs. Neill, and the surety on her cost bond. To this action of the court the plaintiff excepted, and filed her motion for a new trial, among other grounds alleging that it was error on the part of the circuit judge to set aside the verdict of the jury and dismiss her suit notwithstanding said verdict. She also insisted in her motion for a new trial that the circuit judge, if dissatisfied with the verdict of the jury, could only grant a new trial.

Plaintiff duly excepted to the action of the circuit judge, and prayed and perfected her appeal in error to the Court of Civil Appeals.

The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the action of the circuit judge, being of opinion that the proof was not only overwhelming that the insured shot himself, but, so far as they could discover, there was no probative evidence to the contrary. That court permitted the judgment non obstante veredicto to stand as rendered by the circuit judge after the issues had been submitted to a jury and a judgment entered in accordance with said verdict.

The case is here upon a petition for certiorari by Mrs. Neill asking that the action of the Court of Civil Appeals be reviewed. Able briefs have been submitted by counsel for both sides.

We have carefully examined the entire record, and are satisfied that no judgment...