Taliaferro v. Travelers' Protective Ass'n of America

• Citation: 80 F. 368
• Decision Date: 12 April 1897
• Docket Number: 868.
• Parties: TALIAFERRO v. TRAVELERS' PROTECTIVE ASS'N OF AMERICA.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

80 F. 368

TALIAFERRO v. TRAVELERS' PROTECTIVE ASS'N OF AMERICA.

No. 868.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

April 12, 1897

George M. Block, for plaintiff in error.

Henry T. Kent, for defendant in error.

Before SANBORN and THAYER, Circuit Judges, and LOCHREN, District Judge.

THAYER Circuit Judge.

This was a suit on a benefit certificate issued by the Travelers' Protective Association of America, the defendant in error, to Edward McC. Taliaferro, on November 10, 1893. The certificate contained the following provision:

'Every member of the Travelers' Protective Association in good standing shall be entitled to the following benefits, upon satisfactory proof being presented to the national board of directors. Four thousand dollars shall be paid to the heirs of any decreased member in case of death by accident. * * * '

The petition in the suit which was filed by Maud F. C Taliaferro, the plaintiff in error, who was the widow of said Edward McC. Taliaferro, alleged, in substance, that on May 31, 1894, said Edward McC. Taliaferro came to his death by accident, and not from natural causes, being shot with a pistol by one Henry Frith, at Bunkie, in the state of Louisiana; and under the aforesaid provision of the certificate the plaintiff demanded a judgment against the defendant company in the sum of $4,000. At the trial, which took place before a jury, it was conceded by the parties that the sole question for determination was whether the death of the insured was occasioned by accident, within the meaning of that term as used in the benefit certificate. At the conclusion of the testimony the trial court directed the jury to return a verdict in favor of the defendant company, and the giving of such instruction is the only assigned error which is subject to review. The testimony was very brief. None of the facts stated by the two witnesses who were sworn were denied, and the facts so stated may be summarized as follows For six weeks prior to May 31, 1894, the deceased and his wife had been boarding with Mrs. Annie C. Frith, at Bunkie La. On that day the deceased had had some trouble with his wife (the present plaintiff), and had paid his bill, and left the house; and when he left Mrs. Frith directed him not to return. He did return, however, in the evening, while the family were at supper, and inquired of Mrs. Frith for his wife. He was told by her-- which was the fact-- that Mrs. Taliaferro had left the house, and was stopping with her sister, who lived some three miles out of town. The deceased nevertheless insisted on coming into the house, and did enter the hall. Mrs. Frith then called her son, Henry Frith, who was at the time in the dining room, taking supper. The latter, when called into the hall, directed the deceased to leave the house, as he had been warned not to return. To this the deceased replied that he was not 'hunting a difficulty,' but that if he (meaning Henry Frith) 'wanted trouble, he could get it. ' The latter replied that he did not want any trouble, whereupon the deceased left the house, and went out of the gate. As he was going out of the gate, however, and as Mrs. Frith and her son Henry were going back into the house, having accompanied the deceased to the porch, the deceased asked the said Henry Frith to come outside the gate, as he wished to speak with him. Henry Frith went outside of the gate, as he was requested to do, and entered into a conversation with the deceased, which was carried on at first in a low tone, and...