Southern Ins. Co. v. Tate
| Citation | 22 Ala.App. 72,112 So. 365 |
| Decision Date | 22 March 1927 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 113 [*] |
| Parties | SOUTHERN INS. CO. v. TATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied April 12, 1927
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Romaine Boyd, Judge.
Action on policies of life insurance by Rebecca Tate against the Southern Insurance Company. From a judgment for plaintiff defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Bradley Baldwin, All & White, of Birmingham, and Hubert S. Lipscomb of Jackson, Miss., for appellant.
W.A. Jacobs, of Birmingham, for appellee.
No question is raised for our consideration on the pleadings.
The age of insured was the controlling factor in the case. It was never definitely stated by any witness or party in interest. In view of all the circumstances, we cannot see the fault in the opening statement of plaintiff's (appellee's) counsel, undertaken to be pointed out by appellant. The case of Loeb v. Webster, 213 Ala. 99, 104 So. 25, is not, we think, an authority to the contrary of the view we take.
The questions put by plaintiff's (appellee's) counsel to the witnesses Rebecca Tate and Harry Tate, the wife and son of deceased (insured), as to their judgment as to deceased's age, seem not to be materially different from questions on the same subject put by appellant's counsel, and for this reason the action of the court in allowing said questions and the answers thereto would perhaps not be erroneous. Morris v. Corona Coal Co. (Ala.Sup.) 109 So. 278.
But, anyway, we think the two witnesses named, by virtue of their long association with deceased, were properly allowed to give their judgment as to his age. Winter v. State, 123 Ala. 1, 26 So. 949.
What was said and done by the parties, at the time of the delivery of the check by appellant's agent to appellee, seems to us, in the light of the issues as to an accord and satisfaction, properly admitted in evidence. Consequently, the court did not err in refusing to exclude the statement of appellee's son, who was present and undertaking to assist her.
Neither do we think there was error in allowing the question, on cross-examination of the witness Jordan, as to whether he remembered another claim against the same defendant. The purpose of the question was stated. It did not seek the particulars of any other matter. And on cross-examination, as it was, it seems to us not to have been improper.
The motion for a new trial was properly overruled.
We can see...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J.R. Raible Co. v. City Bank & Trust Co.
... ... was declared to be one way in Germania Ins. Co. v ... Kitchens, 201 Ala. 674, 79 So. 246, followed by this ... court in American Cast I.P ... ...
-
Tucker v. Houston
... ... Birmingham ... College, now known as Birmingham-Southern College, a ... Methodist institution, was named in the will of deceased as ... residuary legatee, ... ...
-
Com. v. Robinson
...294 Ky. 429, 172 S.W.2d 46 (1943); Harris v. Switchmen's Union of North America, 237 S.W. 155 (Mo.App.1922); Southern Ins. Co. v. Tate, 22 Ala.App. 72, 112 So. 365 (1927). Some courts have cautioned that in admitting this type of evidence, "(m)uch must be left to the discretion of the trial......
-
Brown v. Leek
... ... Magro (Ala. Sup.) 124 So. 296; ... Loeb v. Webster, 213 Ala. 99, 104 So. 25; ... Southern Ins. Co. v. Tate, 22 Ala. App. 72, 112 So ... 365; Id., 216 Ala. 694, 112 So. 918 ... ...