Sovereign Camp, Woodmen of the World v. Hackworth

Supreme Court of Alabama

Sovereign Camp, Woodmen of the World v. Hackworth

75 So. 463, 200 Ala. 87, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 306

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedApril 26, 1917

Docket8 Div. 893.

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 75 So. 463 (Sovereign Camp, Woodmen of the World v. Hackworth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sovereign Camp, Woodmen of the World v. Hackworth, 75 So. 463, 200 Ala. 87, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 306 (Ala. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

ANDERSON, O. J.

[1, 2] While the burden of proof was on the defendant to prove its special plea of suicide, we think that the burden was met by the undisputed evidence, and that there were no reasonable inferences to the contrary. The direct and positive evidence shows that the insured shot himself intentionally, but the theory of the plaintiff is that he did not do so, but was murdered by his wife and her brother, one or both. We of course appreciate the rule of law that wherever there is a conflict in the evidence upon any material fact, or where the evidence reasonably affords conflicting inferences, the question should be submitted to the jury. This rule, however, applies to reasonable inferences, _and not mere conjectures and speculations, and to hold that the evidence tended to show that the insured was murdered by his wife and her brother, one or both, would be hut to indulge in a mere conjecture or speculation, and we think that the trial court erred in refusing the general charge requested by the defendant.

Reversed and remanded.

McCLELLAN, SAYRE, and GARDNER, JJ., concur.

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

ANDERSON, O. J.

[1, 2] While the burden of proof was on the defendant to prove its special plea of suicide, we think that the burden was met by the undisputed evidence, and that there were no reasonable inferences to the contrary. The direct and positive evidence shows that the insured shot himself intentionally, but the theory of the plaintiff is that he did not do so, but was murdered by his wife and her brother, one or both. We of course appreciate the rule of law that wherever there is a conflict in the evidence upon any material fact, or where the evidence reasonably affords conflicting inferences, the question should be submitted to the jury. This rule, however, applies to reasonable inferences, _and not mere conjectures and speculations, and to hold that the evidence tended to show that the insured was murdered by his wife and her brother, one or both, would be hut to indulge in a mere conjecture or speculation, and we think that the trial court erred in refusing the general charge requested by the defendant.

Reversed and remanded.

McCLELLAN, SAYRE, and GARDNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 So. 463, 200 Ala. 87, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sovereign-camp-woodmen-of-the-world-v-hackworth-ala-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack