Trembley v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.
| Decision Date | 19 July 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 29508.,29508. |
| Citation | 223 S.W. 887 |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
| Parties | TREMBLEY v. FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO. OF NEW YORK. |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Wilson A. Taylor, Judge.
Action by Ida J. Trembley against the Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Cause transferred to Court of Appeals.
Jones, Rocker, Sullivan & Angert, of St. Louis, for appellant.
Jourdan, Rassieur & Pierce, of St. Louis, for respondent.
I. This was a suit on an accident policy to recover $5,000, the amount of the policy, with 10 per centum damages and reasonable attorney's fees on account of vexatious refusal to pay. Petition filed August 25, 1916. Answer filed November 3, 1916. In addition to a general denial, the answer set up that the deceased committed suicide while sane, and the policy provided in that event the amount of recovery should be limited to $1,000, also that our statute (section 7068, R. S. 1909), and amendment thereto of 1911 (Laws 1911, p. 282), as construed by the courts of this state, authorizing damages and attorneys' fees for vexatious delay, violated section 10 of article 1 and the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution, and section 30 of article 2 and section 10 of article 2 of the Constitution of this state. At the close of the evidence, the defendant asked the court to instruct the jury that said section 7068, "as interpreted by the courts of this state to authorize a jury to find an insurance company has vexatiously refused to pay the amount of the claim without any evidence of the fact that the refusal was vexatious," violates the state and federal Constitutions, as set out in the answer. Also asked an instruction that section 6945, R. S. 1909 (), "if interpreted to entitle the plaintiff to recover in excess of $1,000, in the event of the self-destruction of the insured while sane," is unconstitutional, in that it would violate section 30 of article 2 and section 4 of article 2 of the Constitution of this state, and the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution. Both instructions were refused. The plaintiff recovered a verdict for $6,017.50, for which judgment was rendered. Certain other instructions were asked by defendant, and refused, and given for plaintiff, to which defendant duly excepted, but they need not be further referred to, in the view we take of the case. After motion for new trial was urged without avail, the defendant appealed to this court.
II. The amount involved is not sufficient to give us jurisdiction, and unless we have jurisdiction, because of the constitutional questions suggested below, we cannot entertain this appeal.
The allegation in the answer that said section 7068, as construed by the courts of this state, violates the constitutional provisions mentioned, adds nothing to the plea, because the construction, which we have put on the statute, is a part of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fischbach Brewing Co. v. City of St. Louis
... ... 794, ... 795(3); State ex rel. v. American Surety Co. (Mo.), ... 210 S.W. 428, 429(2); Trembley v. Fidelity & Casualty Co ... (Mo.), 223 S.W. 887, 888(1)]. Defendants, frankly ... conceding ... ...
-
Trembley v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.
...held the constitutional questions raised as having been settled, and transferred the cause to this court. Trembley v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York (Mo. Sup.) 223 S. W. 887. At the March term, 1921, of this court the case was submitted, resulting in a reversal of the judgment and the ......
-
Trembley v. Fidelity & Casualty Co,
...New York, a corporation. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, from whence the cause was transferred (223 S. W. 887) to the St. Louis Court of Appeals. Reversed and Jones, Rocker, Sullivan & Angert, of St. Louis, for appellant. Jourdan, Rassieur & Pierce an......
-
Trembley v. The Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, a Corp.
...1909, were unconstitutional. An appeal was allowed to the Supreme Court of this State. That court held, in an opinion reported in 223 S.W. 887, that the question raised was unavailing invoke its jurisdiction and transferred the case here. The petition is in the conventional form. It alleges......