Life Ins. Co. of Tenn. v. Andrews

115 So. 548, 149 Miss. 306, 1928 Miss. LEXIS 39
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 6, 1928
DocketNo. 26797.
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 115 So. 548 (Life Ins. Co. of Tenn. v. Andrews) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Life Ins. Co. of Tenn. v. Andrews, 115 So. 548, 149 Miss. 306, 1928 Miss. LEXIS 39 (Mich. 1928).

Opinion

Anderson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Appellee brought this action in the circuit court of Lowndes county against appellant to recover the sum of two thousand dollars on a casualty insurance policy issued by appellant to John V. Andrews, the son of appellee, in which policy appellee was named as beneficiary. There was a trial, and verdict and judgment for appellee, from which judgment appellant prosecutes this appeal.

On March 20, 1926', appellant issued and delivered to John Y. Andrews a casualty policy naming his father, appellee, as the beneficiary therein. The principal sum named in the policy was one thousand dollars. The policy provided for the payment to the beneficiary double that amount in case of the accidental death of the insured. While the policy was in force, the insured died from a pistol shot wound. The policy contained the following clause:

“If within one year from the date of issue of this policy the insured shall, whether sane or insane, die by his own hand, the liability of the company shall be limited to the amount of the premiums paid hereon. ’ ’

*310 The insured died within three months after.the pplicy was issued.

Appellant defended the action upon the alleged ground that the insured came to his death by suicide, and that, therefore, under the suicide clause of the policy, appellant was not liable to the beneficiary, therein, except for the premiums paid on the policy, amounting’ to twelve dollars and eighty-three cents, which appellant tendered to appellee, which tender appellee declined.

The only error assigned and argued by appellant is that the court erred in refusing its request for a directed verdict. By agreement of the, parties the evidence in the case was embodied in Avriting and made a part of the récord for the purposes of this appeal. The evidence was brief. We think it probably better to set it out in full rather than undertake to state its substance. It follows, leaAung off such formal parts as are deemed immaterial:

Evidence on Behalf of Appellee.

“Grover Cleveland Andrews, plaintiff in the said cause, who testified as witness for himself at the trial of the said cause as follows: That he is the father of John Y. (or Vardanian) .Andrews, and the beneficiary named in the policy No. 50079, in the Life & Casualty Insurance Company of Tennessee, which said policy is dated March 10, 1920, and provides for payment of one thousand dollars in case of death from natural causes within the terms of the policy and the payment of two thousand dollars in case of death by accident within the terms of the'policy. The policy was further filed as an exhibit to the declaration and was introduced as exhibit to the testimony of said plaintiff. Affiant testified further that the said insured, John V. Andrews, was living on the place of and working with Mr. Arrington Johnson at the time of his death, and that on the morning of the death of the said insured, affiant and affiant’s wife, the mother of insured, were called to the home of Mr. Arrington Johnson, and that the date of the death of the said insured was June. *311 15,1926. "When they arrived there they found Dr. Chandler, John Brooks, and Arrington Johnson in the room and the body of deceased lying on the bed in the room with his clothing on, but the blood had been washed from the face of deceased and there was a bullet wound entering’ the right temple and coming out behind the left ear on the body of the said insured. Affiant had seen his son frequently during the preceding days and said son was cheerful and bright and in his normal state of mind. Affiant testified also on cross-examination that the note was given to himself and wife after she and affiant reached the scene of the death of the insured, and the affiant further testified that the said note did contain expressions stating in about the words, ‘I am world weary,’ and also that the note did contain the expression in the words or about the words, ‘The only girl I ever loved has gone back on me. ’
“Affiant did testify that the pistol was sent to affiant which was an automatic pistol. Affiant further testified that he did not know at the time he was giving this testimony at the trial where the said note was; that he and his wife had not preserved it and could not produce it; that he had offered it to the agent of the company before the trial for inspection, bnt the agent who called for it had gone and it was lost. No powder burns on the body of the deceased.
“Affiant further testified that the proper death proofs had been made and submitted to the defendant, the insurance company, and that payment of the claim of insurance had been declined, and also the insurance company had made and did then make in open court tender of the amount of the premiums, which amounted to twelve dollars and eighty-three cents, which had been paid on the policy, and that these premiums were declined and refused previously and also in open court at the time of the trial by affiant as the beneficiary under the said policy, and that the tender previously made and also at the trial of the case was made by the company on their claim *312 that the death of the insured was by suicide and that the terms of the policy provided that in case of such death by suicide within a period of twelve months after the date of the policy, the company should be liable only for a refund of the premiums paid and the premiums were declined on this ground.
“Hazel Gilliam, witness for the plaintiff, testified as follows: That she is of the age of seventeen years and lives in Lowndes county, Miss., and that Vardaman Andrews had been going with her and paying her attention for some time; that about six months prior to the time of his death he had proposed marriage to her and that she had stated that she was too young to marry and that he had said he would wait. Witness saw the said Vardaman Andrews on the morning of June 15th, before his death, as he was returning from Dr. Chandler’s, where he had been for some medicine, and was going back to his work with Mr. Arrington Johnson. She saw him about seven or seven-thirty o’clock. He seemed bright and cheerful and normal at that time. At the time she agreed that she would go with him that night to ‘Camp Best-a-While ’ which is a camp about five miles south of Columbus on the Macon road and is a pleasure resort, and they also made an engagement, the one to the other, that they would meet at New Salem at a singing on the following Sunday, and also that they would meet at a Fourth of July picnic on the 4th of July. Affiant testified that the proposal for marriage and her rejection on the ground of youth was about six months prior to the date of the affidavit. She read the note found in the deceased’s room, and her name, Hazel Gilliam, was mentioned as the only girl he had ever loved.
“Miss Edith Gilliam, the elder sister of Hazel Gilliam, testified for the plaintiff that she had seen the deceased on the morning of the date of his death, prior to his death, and that he seemed in good spirits and bright and normal and that she noticed nothing unusual about him.
*313

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

Related

State Ex Rel. Richardson v. Edgeworth
214 So. 2d 579 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1968)
Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n v. Denton
124 S.W.2d 278 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1938)
Jefferson Standard Life Ins. v. Jefcoats
143 So. 842 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1932)
Nichols v. New York Life Insurance
292 P. 253 (Montana Supreme Court, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
115 So. 548, 149 Miss. 306, 1928 Miss. LEXIS 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/life-ins-co-of-tenn-v-andrews-miss-1928.