Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Hand

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Hand

102 S.E. 647, 25 Ga. App. 90, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 614

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 18, 1920

Docket10900

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 102 S.E. 647 (Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Hand) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Hand, 102 S.E. 647, 25 Ga. App. 90, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 614 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

This court cannot say, as a matter of law, that the jury was not authorized to find the verdict rendered, since it is supported by the sworn testimony of the plaintiff, which they had a right to accept and believe. The fact that in a criminal proceeding the beneficiary named in the policy sued on had been convicted of voluntary manslaughter, for the felonious killing of his wife, who was the assured named in the policy, would not prevent the jury in this proceeding from accepting his sworn testimony to the effect that such killing by him was accidental and unintentional.

The'refusal of the trial court to admit in evidence a certified copy of the indictment, verdict, and sentence in the criminal case, in support of [91]*91the coroner’s verdict (which latter was admitted in evidence under the terms of the policy), was not erroneous Cottingham v. Weeks, 54 Ga. 275; Tumlin v. Parrott, 82 Ga. 732 (2) (9 S. E. 718); Seaboard AirLine Railway v. O’Quin, 124 Ga. 357 (3) (52 S. E. 427, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 472) ; Powell v. Wiley, 125 Ga. 823 (1) (54 S. E. 732).

Decided March 18, 1920.

Action on life-insurance policy; from city court of LaGrange-—• Judge Moon. August 27, 1919.

Battle & Hollis, for plaintiff in error. M. U. Mooty, contra.

Nor was error committed in allowing testimony tending to show the general good character of the plaintiff, although unimpeached; since the nature of the action, and the affirmative defense set up thereto by the defendant, necessarily involved the same. 'Civil Code (1910), § 5745; German American Mutual Life Association v. Farley, 102 Ga. 720 (5) (29 S. E. 615).

The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in reopening the case in order to permit the plaintiff to introduce an additional witness to testify concerning one of the issues in the case.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

This court cannot say, as a matter of law, that the jury was not authorized to find the verdict rendered, since it is supported by the sworn testimony of the plaintiff, which they had a right to accept and believe. The fact that in a criminal proceeding the beneficiary named in the policy sued on had been convicted of voluntary manslaughter, for the felonious killing of his wife, who was the assured named in the policy, would not prevent the jury in this proceeding from accepting his sworn testimony to the effect that such killing by him was accidental and unintentional.

The'refusal of the trial court to admit in evidence a certified copy of the indictment, verdict, and sentence in the criminal case, in support of [91]*91the coroner’s verdict (which latter was admitted in evidence under the terms of the policy), was not erroneous Cottingham v. Weeks, 54 Ga. 275; Tumlin v. Parrott, 82 Ga. 732 (2) (9 S. E. 718); Seaboard AirLine Railway v. O’Quin, 124 Ga. 357 (3) (52 S. E. 427, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 472) ; Powell v. Wiley, 125 Ga. 823 (1) (54 S. E. 732).

Decided March 18, 1920.

Action on life-insurance policy; from city court of LaGrange-—• Judge Moon. August 27, 1919.

Battle & Hollis, for plaintiff in error. M. U. Mooty, contra.

Nor was error committed in allowing testimony tending to show the general good character of the plaintiff, although unimpeached; since the nature of the action, and the affirmative defense set up thereto by the defendant, necessarily involved the same. 'Civil Code (1910), § 5745; German American Mutual Life Association v. Farley, 102 Ga. 720 (5) (29 S. E. 615).

The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in reopening the case in order to permit the plaintiff to introduce an additional witness to testify concerning one of the issues in the case.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 S.E. 647, 25 Ga. App. 90, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metropolitan-life-insurance-v-hand-gactapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack