Feinberg v. Great Southern Life Ins.

111 S.W.2d 729, 1937 Tex. App. LEXIS 1487
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 8, 1937
DocketNo. 3130.
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 111 S.W.2d 729 (Feinberg v. Great Southern Life Ins.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Feinberg v. Great Southern Life Ins., 111 S.W.2d 729, 1937 Tex. App. LEXIS 1487 (Tex. Ct. App. 1937).

Opinion

WALKER, Chief Justice.

About 7:50 a. m., on the 25th day of August, 1933, in the city of Beaumont, Max Feinberg was run over by a freight train of the Beaumont, Sour Lake & Western Railway Company, and killed. At the time of his death he carried with appellee, Great Southern Life Insurance Company, a policy of life insurance, in full force and effect, for the sum of $25,000, payable to appellant, Mrs. Ida Feinberg, beneficiary ; this policy called for “double indemnity” in the event the death of the insured resulted from bodily injury, etc., but expressly provided: “This agreement does not cover suicide, sane or insane, or any attempt thereat, sane or insane; nor death as a result of bodily injuries received while engaged in Military or Naval Service in time of war, or in aeronautics or submarine operations in time of peace or war; nor death resulting directly or indirectly from violation of law by the Insured.”

On due proof of loss appellee paid the primary indemnity of $25,000, but refused to pay the “double indemnity” on these grounds: (a) The death of the insured was a suicide; (b) the insured was a trespasser on the property of the railroad company at the time of his death; (c) the insured was violating the law at the time of his death. When payment was refused appellant instituted this suit to recover the "double indemnity”; appellee answered, pleading in defense the provisions of the policy copied above. On trial to a jury, judgment was rendered in favor of ap-pellee on an instructed verdict.

Pretermitting a discussion of the defenses of trespass and law violation, the evidence supports the verdict on the conclusion that the death of the insured was a suicide. All the testimony was to that effect, and there was not a scintilla of evidence to the contrary; nor was there a -circumstance in the record impeaching the testimony of the eyewitnesses.

The railroad track crosses Fourth avenue about 800 feet west of the place where Mr. Feinberg was killed; he was killed near the intersection of the railroad tracks with Avenue C. We take the following statement from appellee’s brief: “About 7:00 A. M. the morning of his death, three witnesses place him at Fourth Avenue on the north side of the railroad yards where the same ' crew was doing some switching. John McMur'ray, the fireman on the engine, described his actions as follows: When we were switching, that is making them fast moves, shifting the cars back and forth over where they were cutting cars at, he came up to the car; about the time he would get up to the cars we was stopped, and he would go right back to the same place. He would get very close.’ J. D. Smith, the section foreman, described his actions as follows: ‘He walked up there. At that time we thought he was trying to crawl through. When he walked up there, it seems like he wanted to get through the train and he acted like he was going to put his hands on the grip irons between the cars, and I would say he got in six inches of the train and then backed off.’ Later, before the train of cars reached Avenue C, he was stationed at the telegraph pole on the west side of Avenue C, and north of the railroad track. There was nothing at that time to prevent him from crossing Avenue C to the south, on which side his automobile was located. He waited at his station near the telegraph pole till some of the freight cars had been pushed east across Avenue C, and then started walking east till he crossed over the roadway of Avenue C and on to the property of the Beaumont, Sour Lake & Western Railway Company. He then hastened his pace slightly, assumed a crouched or stooped position for a few steps, and then jumped or leaped under the train.”

The witness, Pete Williams, testified:

“Q. Do you remember on August 25, 1933, seeing Mr. Feinberg around, Mr. Max Feinberg, around Avenue C where it crosses the Beaumont, Sour Lake & Western Railway Company? A. I seen him, but not knowing who he was.
“Q. You saw him, but you didn’t know who he was at the time you first saw him? A. No, sir, I didn’t know him.
“Q. Well, did you later see a man dead along the right of way of the Beaumont, Sour Lake & Western lying east of Avenue C? A. Yes, sir.
“Q. The man that you saw dead there, is he the same man that you have refer *731 ence to seeing early in the morning? A. Yes, sir, it was the same man. * * *
“Q. Now then, where was this gentleman that you say you saw, this white gentleman you have described as Mr. Feinberg, where was he when you first saw him? A. When i first saw the gentleman he was down the track, down that way.
“Q. Which way? West? A. Well, west.
“Q. Towards Jones-O’Shaughnessy? A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Did you see him stop at any place there after you all got across? A. Well, he stopped at a post, one of those posts what those wires was on. He stopped there at one of them a few minutes.
“Q. Where were you when he was at the post? A. I was right there between those two — between where the Santa Fe goes in right there at the crossing on Avenue C.
“Q. Was there any switching going on across Avenue C about that time ? A. Yes, sir, the switch engine had a long train switching.
“Q. Did you see the front end of that string of cars pushed over Avenue C? A. Did I see the front end?
“Q. Yes. A. Yes, sir.
“Q. The end that was going east? A. Yes, sir. They had slowed up there to throw a switch or something, a crossing or something, and they was switching east.
“Q. Now did Mr. Feinberg move after that train of cars moved across Avenue C? A. Yes, sir, he was walking up alongside of the cars.
“Q. Which way was he going? A. Going east.
“Q. Towards town or away from town? A. Towards town.
“Q. Now what was this train of cars doing as he walked across Avenue C? A. The cars was moving too.
“Q. Did he walk the same way the cars were being shoved? A. Yes, sir, they was shoving them east and he was walking east.
“Q. How far was he from those cars as they moved along going east? How far from them as he walked across there? A. Well, he was just like any other — just like a brakeman walking alongside the cars, about two feet and a half.
“Q. Do you know where that first switch stand is there east of Avenue C? Have you seen it; have you? A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Did he walk to that — along that train of cars until he got to that switch stand? A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Then what did he do? A. Well now, when he got to that switch stand he kind of looked around like this and he had his hand under the train. I couldn’t see his hand. I don’t know whether he had his hand hold of anything or not, but he went along that way with the train.
“Q. All right. Then what did he do? A. Then he made -a jump.
“Q. He made a jump? A. And he cut . that arm.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Opinion No.
Texas Attorney General Reports, 2008
Stockman v. State
826 S.W.2d 627 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
111 S.W.2d 729, 1937 Tex. App. LEXIS 1487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feinberg-v-great-southern-life-ins-texapp-1937.