Supreme Lodge, Knights of Pythias v. Henrietta Meyer

• Decision Date: 29 May 1905
• Docket Number: No. 234,234
• Citation: 198 U.S. 508,25 S.Ct. 754,49 L.Ed. 1146
• Parties: SUPREME LODGE, KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS, Plff. in Err. , v. HENRIETTA MEYER
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

198 U.S. 508

25 S.Ct. 754

49 L.Ed. 1146

SUPREME LODGE, KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS, Plff. in Err.,

v HENRIETTA MEYER.

No. 234.

Argued and submitted April 28, 1905.

Decided May 29, 1905.

Messrs. Carlos S. Hardy and Laurence G. Goodhart for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 509-513 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Otto H. Droege and J. Lawrence Friedmann for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 513-515 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff in error is a corporation organized under an act of Congress approved June 29, 1894. This action was brought against it by defendant in error as payee in a certain benefit certificate issued by it to Emanuel Meyer, husband of Henrietta Meyer, dated September 20, 1894, whereby it insured his life in the sum of $2,000. The defendant in error obtained judgment, which was successively affirmed by the appellate division and by the court of appeals of New York. The judgment of affirmance was entered in the supreme court, to which the case was remitted, and this writ of error was then sued out.

There are two questions in the case,—the place of the contract and the effect of the following provision in the certificate of insurance:

'And I hereby, for myself, my heirs, assigns, representatives, and beneficiaries, expressly waive any and all provisions of law, now or hereafter in force, prohibiting or excusing any physician heretofore or hereafter attending me professionally or otherwise, from disclosing or testifying to any information acquired thereby, or making such physician incompetent as a witness; and hereby consent that any such physician may testify to and disclose any information so derived or received in any suit or proceeding wherein the same may be material.'

This provision takes pertinence from another, whereby 'it is agreed that if death shall result by self-destruction whether sane or insane,' the certificate 'shall be null and void, and all claims on account of such membership shall be forfeited.'

The case was submitted for a special verdict on the question 'Did Emanuel Meyer, the husband of the plaintiff, commit suicide?' The jury answered 'No.'

On the trial plaintiff in error offered the testimony of three physicians who attended Meyer, as to declarations made by him tending to show that he had taken poison with suicidal intent. It appeared that Meyer did not request the attendance of the physicians,—indeed, protested against treatment. The testimony was excluded under §§ 834 and 836 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the state. Section 834 forbids any physician 'to disclose any information which he acquired in attending a patient, in a professional capacity, and which was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity,' and § 836 provides that § 834 applies 'unless the provisions thereof are expressly waived upon the trial or examination by . . . the patient. . . . But a physician . . . may, upon a trial or examination, disclose any information as to the mental or physical condition of a patient who is deceased, which he acquired in attending such patients professionally, except confidential communications and such facts as would tend to disgrace the memory of the patient when the provisions of § 834 have been expressly waived on such trial or examination by the personal representatives of the deceased patient.'

The court of appeals held that the physicians were 'attending a patient in their professional capacity;' that the information that they acquired 'was necessary to enable' them 'to act in that capacity,' and that their testimony was therefore properly excluded under §§ 834 and 836. The court also held that the certificate of insurance was a New York contract. Judge Gray and Chief Judge Parker concurred in the latter view, but dissented as to the application of the Code sections. Plaintiff in error contests both sections. The argument is that (1) it appears from the testimonium clause of the certificate of insurance that it was signed and sealed by plaintiff in error at Chicago, Illinois, and hence is an Illinois contract, and must be construed with regard to the law of that jurisdiction; and as there is no evidence of what that law is it must be assumed to be what the common law of the state is, and under that law the testimony of the physicians was admissible. (2) We quote counsel: 'The attempted application of §§ 834 and 836 of the Civil Code of Procedure of the state of New York to the contract in the case at bar is a violation of the Federal Constitution.'

These contentions may be said to have the same ultimate foundation, but regarding them as separate and independent, the first is based on the ground that plaintiff in error derived the right, from its contract with Meyer, to the testimony of the physicians, which right attended the contract in whatever forum suit upon the contract might be brought. This is certainly debatable. The general rule is that all matters respecting the remedy and admissibility of evidence depend upon the law of the state where the suit is brought.

Northern P. R. Co. v. Babcock, 154 U. S. 190, 38 L. ed. 958, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 978; Wilcox v. Hunt, 13 Pet. 378, 10 L. ed. 209; Pritchard v. Norton, 106 U. S. 124, 27 L. ed 104, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 102; Bank of the United States v. Donnally, 8 Pet. 361, 8 L. ed. 974.

However, if the certificate of insurance is not an Illinois contract, all the questions which depend upon that become irrelevant. We think it is not an Illinois contract. Judge Gray, expressing the opinion of the court of appeals, disposed of the contention that the certificate of insurance is an Illinois contract briefly but completely. The learned judge said:

'With respect to the first of these questions [that the legislation of New York impaired the obligation of the contract between plaintiff in error and Meyer] raised by the appellant, whatever other answers might be made to the applicability of the provision of the Federal Constitution relied upon, it is sufficient to say, now, that this contract was comsummated in the state of New...