Providence Life Accident Insurance Co. v. Black
Providence Life Accident Insurance Co. v. Black. Assumpsit.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
BROWN, J.
(1)
On cross-examination of the witness Dr. Thomas, who had testified in behalf of the plaintiff as to the character, extent, and duration of his alleged injuries, he was asked by the defendant’s counsel: “Were you not convicted in This court on November 5, 1907, of the offense of criminally using or employing means to procure the miscarriage of a pregnant *439 woman?” and, on objection being made to the question on the ground that the question “called for immaterial, incompetent, and irrelevant testimony,” stated to the court that the answer to the question would be in the affirmative, and that it was offered to impeach the credibility of the witness. The court sustained the objection, and in the ruling committed reversible error. ■ — -Code 1907, § 6215; Code 1907, § 4009;
Moore v. State, 12 Ala. App. 243 , 67 South. 789 ;
Fuller v. State, 147 Ala. 37 , 41 South. 775 .
(2)
It does not appear that plaintiff’s counsel asked the-witness Barnes to state any part of a conversation between witness and Dr. Moore, but the witness was merely interrogated as-to the fact of such conversation taking place, but not what was-said. On this predicate, the defendant was not entitled to show what Dr. Moore said in the conversation with the witness.— M., J. & K. C. R. R. Co. v. Hawkins, 163 Ala. 565 , 51 South. 37 .
(3)
The fact that there was a doctor practicing medicine in the .neighborhood living within one mile of the plaintiff was not material to any issue in the case, and had no tendency to show that plaintiff was not injured.
(4, 5)
Even if it be conceded that the statement by the plaintiff in the application that he was a “farm foreman” was an admission by him of a fact, the admission would necessarily be limited to the time it was made. It was not an admission that this was his occupation when he was injured by accident. Under the evidence in this case, the charge refused to the defendant, if otherwise correct, was abstract.
(6)
If the representation as to the plaintiff’s occupation in any way affected the risk, the issue was not presented in this case, and the ruling of the court in arresting the argument of defendant’s counsel was free from error.
For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed.
Reversed and remanded.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.