United States Mut. Acc. Ass'n v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 13 April 1896
• Docket Number: 696.
• Citation: 74 F. 10
• Parties: UNITED STATES MUT. ACC. ASS'N v. ROBINSON.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

74 F. 10

UNITED STATES MUT. ACC. ASS'N v. ROBINSON.

No. 696.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

April 13, 1896

James C. Jones (William C. Jones was with him on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

George H. Sanders, for defendant in error.

Before CALDWELL, SANBORN, and THAYER, Circuit Judges.

CALDWELL Circuit Judge.

This action was brought by Minnie Robinson, the defendant in error, against the United States Mutual Accident Association, the plaintiff in error, on a casualty policy of insurance issued to Emile O. Moore, in case of death from casualties insured against, 'to John P., Jr and Catherine Moore (his son and daughter) or to the survivor of them, or, in event of their prior death, according to the by-laws. ' The complaint alleged 'that by the terms of said insurance contract, and under the by-laws of the defendant association, the said Emile O. Moore had the right to, and did, change the beneficiary under said policy, by designating in due form, and in accordance with the by-laws of said defendant association, to the plaintiff herein, as a substituted beneficiary under said policy. ' The answer set up several defenses, which, in the view we take of the case, need not be particularly set out. A jury was waived and the case was tried before the court, in pursuance of a written stipulation signed by the parties, and filed with the clerk, as required by section 649 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. The court's finding on the facts was general in favor of the plaintiff, and judgment was rendered accordingly. 68 F. 825. The bill of exceptions does not disclose that any exceptions were taken to the introduction or exclusion of evidence, or to any other ruling of the court in the progress of the trial. At the close of all the evidence the court was asked to declare 'that under the law and the evidence the finding must be for the defendant ' If it was competent in any case for this court to look into the evidence with a view of determining whether a general finding of the lower court on the facts was supported by the evidence, we could not do so in this case, because the bill of exceptions fails to state that it contains all the evidence.

Much of the brief filed in behalf of the plaintiff in error is devoted to the discussion of the question whether the defendant in error had an insurable interest in the life of Moore, but there is no assignment of error raising that...