Sieders v. Merchants' Life Ass'n.

• Decision Date: 31 May 1899
• Citation: 51 S.W. 547
• Parties: SIEDERS v. MERCHANTS' LIFE ASS'N OF UNITED STATES.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

51 S.W. 547

SIEDERS v. MERCHANTS' LIFE ASS'N OF UNITED STATES.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

May 31, 1899.

Appeal from district court, Travis county; R. E. Brooks, Judge.

Action by Mary Sieders against the Merchants' Life Association of the United States. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Z. T. Fulmore, for appellant. Fiset & Miller, for appellee.

FISHER, C. J.

This is an action by Mrs. Mary Sieders, the wife of P. W. Sieders, deceased, against the appellee, on a policy of insurance covering the life of her husband. Certain defenses were pleaded, which are indicated by the findings of the trial court. The court below found its conclusions of fact and law, which resulted in a judgment in favor of the appellee. The evidence supports these conclusions, which are adopted by this court. They are fully stated in the record, and it is unnecessary to repeat them in this opinion. The assured, in his application for the policy, warranted statements to the effect that he had not applied for or been refused insurance in other companies, and that no policy had been issued upon his life which had been previously canceled; nor did he use ardent spirits, wines, or malt liquors. The court finds that these statements were false, and that they were warranted in the application to be true, which was made a part of the policy. And the court further found that none of the false matters stated in the application contributed to the death of Sieders. The plaintiff pleaded a statute of Missouri, as follows: "No defense based upon misrepresentations made in obtaining or securing a policy of insurance on the life or lives of any person shall be deemed material or render the policy void, unless the matter misrepresented shall have actually contributed to the contingency or event on which the policy is to become due or payable, and whether it so contributed in any case, shall be a question for the jury." The main point raised by the appellant in her brief is the refusal of the court to give effect to this statute, in determining the effect to be given to the policy. The court below refused to apply this statute, for the reason that the policy should be construed according to the laws of this state, as it was evidently contemplated that it was to be performed here, and that its collection should be enforced through the courts of this state. Without entering into a discussion upon this question, we think the conclusion reached by the trial court is...