Propst v. Capital Mut. Ass'n

Decision Date09 January 1939
Citation124 S.W.2d 515,233 Mo.App. 612
PartiesKATIE PROPST, RESPONDENT, v. CAPITAL MUTUAL ASSOCIATION, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT
CourtKansas Court of Appeals

Appeal from Callaway Circuit Court.--Hon. W. M. Dinwiddie, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Judgment affirmed.

Sam W James, Jr. and L. F. Kinder for appellant.

(1) (a) Respondent's petition is fatally defective because it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; it fails to state the essential averments to entitle respondent to recover; that notice of accident and proofs of loss, as required by the terms of the policy, were given by insured, or that insured had performed all of the conditions precedent and incumbent upon her to be performed. Green v. American Life Ins. Co., 93 S.W.2d 1119, l. c. 1123; Bathe v. Mutual Life of Illinois, 152 Mo.App. 87, l c. 94; Mayhew v. Mutual Life of Illinois, 217 Mo.App. 429, 266 S.W. 1001; 336 C. J., Insurance, sec. 794 p. 83. Performance of conditions precedent in an insurance policy, as to notice and proofs of loss, sufficiently pleaded by general allegation of due performance of all conditions. Sec. 807, R. S. Mo. 1929; Jabin v. Nat'l Acc. Society of N. Y., 41 S.W.2d 874; Farmers Bank v. Assurance Co., 106 Mo.App. 114, l. c. 126-127; McGammon v Millers' Nat'l Ins. Co., 171 Mo. 143, 71 S.W 160, 94 Am. St. Rep. 778; Cooley's Briefs on Insurance (2 Ed.), p. 5820; 14 R. C. L., Insurance, Sec. 597, p. 1436; 33 C. J., Insurance, Sec. 794, p. 83. Failure of petition to state cause of action is jurisdictional and may be raised at any stage of the case. Denny v. Guyton, 40 S.W.2d 562, 327 Mo. 1030; Massey-Harris Harvester Co. v. Fed'l Res. Bank, 48 S.W.2d 158, l. c. 163, 226 Mo.App. 916; Hoffman v. McCracken, 168 Mo. 337, 67 S.W. 878; Welch v. Diehl's Est. (Mo. App.), 278 S.W. 1057; Gilmore v. Ozark Mutual Assn. (Mo. App.), 21 S.W.2d 633, l. c. 634; Feldman v. Levinson (Mo. App.), 93 S.W.2d 31; Walker v. Ross (Mo. App.), 71 S.W.2d 124; LaRue v. LaRue, 317 Mo. 207, 294 S.W. 723; Chapman v. Davis (Mo. App.), 287 S.W. 832; Tiller v. Farmers Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 220 Mo.App. 1337, 296 S.W. 464. If petition fails to state cause of action it is appellate court's duty to raise point of its own motion if necessary. Massey-Harris Harvester Co. v. Fed'l Res. Bank, 48 S.W.2d 158, l. c. 163, 226 Mo.App. 916; Greer, Administrator, v. St. L. Iron Mtn., etc., R. Co., 173 Mo.App. 276, 158 S.W. 740. Plaintiff cannot amend his petition by reply. Smissman v. Wells, 255 S.W. 935, 213 Mo.App. 474, l. c. 482; Moberly Commr., etc. v. Schaperkoetter, 228 Mo.App. 378, 67 S.W.2d 121; M. R. Platt, Jr., v. Parker-Washington et al., 161 Mo.App. 669, 144 S.W. 143; Jackson v. Powell, 110 Mo.App. 249, 84 S.W. 1132; Rhodes v. Land & Lumber Co., 105 Mo.App. 279, 79 S.W. 1145; Mathieson v. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., 219 Mo. 542, 118 S.W. 9; Berryman v. Southern Surety Co., 227 S.W. 102; Crawford v. Spencer, 36 Mo.App. 82; Davis v. W. U. Tel. Co., 198 Mo.App. 692, 202 S.W. 292; City of Columbia v. Malo, 217 S.W. 625. (2) Respondent's witness was permitted to testify over objection and exception of appellant to the expense incurred in making trips to office of appellant and for medical examination of respondent, which evidence was irrelevant and immaterial upon any theory of the case, because it is not warranted under any statement, averment or allegation in the petition, is prejudicial to appellant, and inadmissible in evidence. 22 C. J., sec. 89, pp. 158-159; McDonald v. Kansas City Gas Co., 59 S.W.2d 37, 332 Mo. 356. Respondent's Exhibits "E" and "F," which are diagrams of the human eye printed in a medical textbook, were admitted in evidence over the objection of appellant. These exhibits are written hearsay evidence and not admissible in evidence for that reason. Collins, Civil Jury Trial Briefs, sec. 535, p. 641; McDonald v. Metropolitan, 219 Mo. 468, l. c. 491-494, 118 S.W. 78; Edling v. Kans. City Baseball & Exh. Co., 181 Mo.App. 327, 168 S.W. 908; Whitley v. Stein, 34 S.W.2d 998, l. c. 1001; Wright v. Strickler, 96 S.W.2d 937. Pleadings filed in proceedings at law are inadmissible in evidence because they are written hearsay evidence, and in this case, where said pleadings were abandoned, were immaterial, irrelevant and tended to prove no issue in the case. 22 Corpus Juris, sec. 168, pp. 207-208; Davidson v. Peck, 4 Mo. 438. A verdict for the defendant is properly directed when the testimony affords no basis for a recovery in favor of the plaintiff. Cogan v. Cass Ave. & F. G. Ry. Co., 101 Mo.App. 179, 73 S.W. 738; Goodes v. Order of United Commercial Travelers of America, 174 Mo.App. 330, 156 S.W. 955; Masdon v. Stine, 66 S.W.2d 579; Gilmore v. Modern Brotherhood of America, 186 Mo.App. 445, 171 S.W. 629. (3) (a) Respondent's Instruction "P-1," the main instruction of the plaintiff, covers the entire case and directs a verdict for respondent, but ignores and omits the defense of appellant in that it did not require the jury to find that the respondent's loss of sight was caused solely through external, violent and accidental means as a prerequisite to plaintiff's recovery thereunder. Major v. Berg (Mo. App.), 95 S.W.2d 861, l. c. 863; Pandjeris v. Oliver Cadillac Co., 98 S.W.2d 978; State ex rel. Leisk v. Ellison, 271 Mo. 463, 196 S.W. 1088; Hopkins v. Mobile & Ohio R. R. Co., 38 S.W.2d 1009-10-11; Toennies v. St. Louis Public Serv. Co. (Mo. App.), 67 S.W.2d 818; Macklin v. Const. Co., 326 Mo. 38, 31 S.W.2d 14; Hergold v. United Rys. Co., 308 Mo. 142, 271 S.W. 773; State ex rel. Long v. Ellison, 272 Mo. 571, 199 S.W. 984; Hall v. Coal & Coke, 260 Mo. 351, 168 S.W. 927; Dameron v. Hamilton, 264 Mo. 103, 174 S.W. 425; Lackey v. United Rys. Co., 288 Mo. 120, 231 S.W. 956; Dunsmore v. Hartmann (Mo. App.), 256 S.W. 1031; Casin v. Lusk, 227 Mo. 663, 210 S.W. 902; Cantley v. Plattner, 67 S.W.2d 125; Nelson v. Kansas City Pub. Serv. Co. (Mo. App.), 305 S.W.2d 1044; Finley v. Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 239 S.W. 110; Sells v. Fireside Life Assn. (Mo. App.), 66 S.W.2d 955; McDonald v. Kansas City Gas Co., 59 S.W.2d 37; Jenkins v. Mo. State Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 69 S.W.2d 666, l. c. 669; Bentley v. Hurley, 222 Mo.App. 51, 299 S.W. 604; Summers v. Baker, 158 Mo.App. 666, 139 S.W. 226; State ex rel. Central Coal & Coke Co. v. Ellison, 270 Mo. 645, 653, 195 S.W. 722; Degonia v. St. Louis Iron Mtn. & S. Co., 224 Mo. 564, 588, et seq., 123 S.W. 807; Bay v. Wank, 215 Mo.App. 153, 255 S.W. 324; Tucker v. Hibernia Bank & Trust Co., 212 Mo.App. 88, 102, 251 S.W. 406; Phillips v. Thompson, 225 Mo.App. 859, 35 S.W.2d 382, 385. (b) Respondent's instruction "P-2" is clearly erroneous in that it did not require the jury to find the necessary elements to constitute actual "Waiver," or finding of facts upon which "Waiver'" may be reasonably implied. Woodson v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 84 S.W.2d 390; Farage v. John Hancock Mut. Life (Mo. App.), 81 S.W.2d 344; Burdick v. Security Life Assn., 77 Mo.App. 629, l. c. 638. Waiver may be either express or implied but to constitute true waiver there must be an actual intention to relinquish an existing right, benefit or advantage, with knowledge, either actual or constructive, or there must be such conduct as to warrant an inference of such intention to relinguish. Biggs v. Modern Woodmen of America, 336 Mo. 879, 82 S.W.2d 898, l. c. 904-905-908; Thomas v. Modern Woodmen of America, 218 Mo.App. 10, 260 S.W. 552, l. c. 554; Nevil v. Wahl, 65 S.W.2d 123; Schwab v. Brotherhood of American Yeoman, 305 Mo. 148, 264 S.W. 690; 45 Corpus Juris, 132, par. 110; 67 Corpus Juris, 299, par. 3; State ex rel. Thomas v. Trimble, 303 Mo. 266, 259 S.W. 1052; State ex rel. Continental Ins. Co. v. Becker (Mo. Sup.), 77 S.W.2d 100, 105; 10 R. C. L., 689, par. 19; State ex rel. Consol. Dist. No. 2, Pike Co. v. Haid et al., 328 Mo. 739, 41 S.W.2d 806, l. c. 808; Biggs v. Modern Woodmen of America, 336 Mo. 879, 82 S.W.2d 898, l. c. 905. Waiver must be proved by the party alleging it by evidence that does not leave the matter doubtful or uncertain. 67 Corpus Juris, sec. 11, p. 309; Mitchell v. American Mut. Assn., 46 S.W.2d 231, l. c. 236. (c) Respondent's Instructions Numbers "P-1" and "P-2" are misleading, and misdirected the jury, and such instructions, containing misdirection, cannot be corrected even by the giving of other correct instructions and are clearly erroneous. Patterson v. Evans, 254 Mo. 293, 162 S.W. 179; Mansur-Tebbets Co. v. Richie, 143 Mo. 587, 613, 45 S.W. 634; State ex rel. v. Trimble, 318 Mo. 173, 330 S.W. 812; Miners & Merchants Bank v. Richards (Mo. App.), 273 S.W. 415; Doty v. Quincy, O. & K. C. Ry. Co., 136 Mo.App. ___; State ex rel. Central Coal & Coke Co. v. Ellison, 270 Mo. 645, 195 S.W. 722; Lyons v. St. Joseph Belt Ry. Co., 84 S.W.2d 933, l. c. 945; Schubert v. American Press, 19 S.W.2d 473, l. c. 475; Mundy v. Missouri Power & Light Co. (Mo. App.), 101 S.W.2d 740, l. c. 743; Dunn v. Life & Accident Ins. Co., 197 Mo.App. 457. (d) Respondent's instruction "P-3" is clearly erroneous; it is not based upon or authorized by the evidence in this cause, and it assumes as true that demand was in fact made upon appellant, which is controverted evidence. Althage v. People's Motor Bus Co., 320 Mo. 598, 8 S.W. 924; Kuhlman v. Water, Light & Transit Co., 307 Mo. 607-636, 271 S.W. 788; State ex rel. Goessling v. Dawes, 314 Mo. 282-287, 284 S.W. 463; Goodwin v. Eugas, 290 Mo. 673, 236 S.W. 50; State ex rel. v. Ellison, 223 S.W. 671, 215 Mo. 567, 114 S.W. 1013. An instruction which assumes a controverted fact is clearly reversible error. Barr v. Nafziger Baking Co., 41 S.W.2d 559, l. c. 563, 328 Mo. 423; and cases therein cited. Counts v. Thomas, 63 S.W.2d 416, l. c. 420; Alexander v. Hoenshell, 66 S.W.2d 164, l. c. 168; Daniel v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Callahan v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 8 d1 Dezembro d1 1947
    ... ... erroneous. Farmer v. Railway Mail Assn., 57 S.W.2d ... 744, 227 Mo.App. 1082; Layton v. Metropolitan Ins ... Standard Acc ... Ins. Co., 236 S.W. 1065; Propst v. Capitol Mutual ... Ins. Co., 124 S.W.2d 515, 233 Mo.App. 612. (4) ... 1092, 104 S.W. 2d 319, 331[10, 11]; Camp v. John Hancock ... Mut. L. Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 165 S.W. 2d 277, 283[17] ... ...
  • Hayes v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S.
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • 7 d1 Abril d1 1941
    ... ... Travelers Ins. Co. (Ga ... App.), 180 S.E. 141; Propst v. Capitol Mutual ... Association, 233 Mo.App. 612, 124 S.W.2d 515. (3) ... policy would constitute no defense. Eisen v. John Hancock ... Mut. Life Ins. Co., 91 S.W.2d 81, 87; All States ... Life Ins. Co. v ... Corp., 341 ... Mo. 614, 108 S.W.2d 86, 92; Propst v. Capital Mut ... Ass'n, 233 Mo.App. 612, 124 S.W.2d 515, 522. (3) The ... court ... ...
  • O'Meara v. New York Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • 1 d1 Março d1 1943
    ... ... liability for death due to disease. Propst v. Capital ... Mutual Association, 233 Mo.App. 612, 124 S.W.2d 515. (d) ... v. Shain, 127 S.W.2d 675; ... Cameron v. Mass. Protective Assn., 275 S.W. 988; ... Cary v. Preferred Accident Ins. Co., 106 N.W ... Continental Cas ... Co., 99 S.W. 473; Anderson v. Mut. Benefit Ins ... Co., 231 S.W. 75; Schepman v. Mut. Benefit Ins ... ...
  • State ex rel. F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Bland
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 12 d1 Janeiro d1 1948
    ... ... Rearden v. F.W. Woolworth ... Co., 154 S.W.2d 373; Propst v. Capital Mutual ... Assn., 233 Mo.App. 612, 124 S.W.2d 515; Start v ... ...
  • 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