Reininghaus v. Merchants' Life Ass'n

• Decision Date: 12 April 1902
• Citation: 89 N.W. 1113,116 Iowa 364
• Parties: REININGHAUS v. MERCHANTS' LIFE ASS'N.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

116 Iowa 364

89 N.W. 1113

REININGHAUS

v.MERCHANTS' LIFE ASS'N.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 12, 1902.

Appeal from district court, Van Buren county; T. M. Fee, Judge.

Action at law upon a policy or certificate of insurance by defendant upon the life of Lillian Reininghaus. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.Seerly & Clark, for appellant.

Wherry & Walker, for appellee.

WEAVER, J.

The certificate of membership was issued to Mrs. Reininghaus February 7, 1899, and she died on the 22d day of May thereafter. Proper proofs of death were made, and the defendant made and collected an assessment upon its members for the payment of the loss thus occurring, but subsequently refused to make payment, alleging that the insurance was procured by fraud; and such is the defense pleaded to the action brought to recover on the certificate. It is alleged that at the time Mrs. Reininghaus applied for membership in the defendant association she was, and for a long time had been, sick of several diseases of a serious nature; that said fact was well known to her and to the physician who acted as medical examiner for said association; that said applicant and her husband and said physician conspired to deceive and defraud the defendant into the issuance of such certificate of insurance; that, in pursuance of such fraudulent purpose, Mrs. Reininghaus falsely answered many of the questions propounded to her, and falsely stated that she was then in good health and free from disease; that the physician well knew her sick condition, and that she was not an insurable risk, but assisted her in deceiving the defendant; that defendant was thereby deceived, and would not have approved the application, or issued the certificate, but for the fraud so practiced upon it. In view of the fact that, for reasons hereinafter stated, there must be a new trial, we shall avoid any expression of opinion upon the facts, but proceed to consider such assignments of error as are properly presented.

1. Of the 63 errors assigned, 20 are based upon the exclusion by the trial court of the testimony of witnesses who had known Mrs. Reininghaus during the later years of her life as to her apparent physical condition. For example, Mrs. Tiffy, a witness who had met and visited with the deceased in 1898 and 1899, was asked the following questions: “Q. In 1898, state whether Mrs. Reininghaus was sick any time during that year? Q. Did she have smothering at her last sickness? Q. During the last sickness of Mrs. Reininghaus, did she have smothering spells, in which she was unable to breathe?” Another witness was asked: “Q. What was the change in her condition, if any, during that time? Did she grow stronger, or weaker?” Answers to all these questions, and very many others of like nature, were ruled out on the ground that the interrogatories called for the conclusions of the witnesses, and that the witnesses had not been shown competent to testify. These rulings were clearly erroneous. The testimony sought to be elicited does, it is true, partake of the nature of a conclusion; but it is one of those conclusions which are so inseparable from the facts upon which they are based that the law makes them competent evidence, even by a nonexpert witness. It has often been held proper for a witness to state whether a person...