TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Sovereign Camp of the Woodmen of the World v. Winn

Sovereign Camp of the Woodmen of the World v. Winn, 99 S.E. 319 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
May 16, 1919
Docket
No. 10158
Judges
Bloodworth, Broyles, Stephens
Citations
99 S.E. 31923 Ga. App. 7601919 Ga. App. LEXIS 335
Cited by 4
Headnotes
1. The assignment of error upon the overruling of the demurrer to the original petition, not having been argued in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, is treated as abandoned. 2. The court did not err in excluding from the evidence a portion of the record of the coroner’s inquest.(held upon the body of the insured), containing testimony given at the inquest. This was offered for the purpose of showing that the death of the insured was caused by his own hand or act, and it was not admissible for that purpose. In civil actions, nowhere (except in England) is testimony given at a coroner’s inquest competent proof of the cause of the death of the deceased. 3 Enc. Ev. 573 (2-B), 574, and cases cited in note 29; 13 Corpus Juris, 1255 (§ 34, par. 16), 1256, 1257 and notes 13, 14, 15, 16, 17; Queatham v. Modern Woodman, 148 Mo. App. 33 (7, 9, 10) (127 S. W. 651) ; Knights Templars’ &c. Indemnity Co. v. Crayton, 209 Ill. 550 (8) (70 N. E. 1066); Grant v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 176 Ill. App. 292 (3). See also Supreme Council Royal Arcanum v. Quarles, 23 Ga. App. 104 (97 S. E. 557). 3. The court did not err in overruling the ground of the motion for a new trial which was based upon alleged newly discovered evidence. This evidence was cumulative in its character, and moreover was of such, a nature as to show -in itself that by proper diligence of the movant’s counsel it could havF become known to them before the trial, - notwithstanding the conclusion stated in their affidavits that it could not have been discovered by the exercise of ordinary diligence.
Summary
Action on insurance policy; from city court of Savannah—Judge Freeman. October 4, 1918.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Broyles

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Broyles, P. J.

This ease has been passed upon by three different juries. The first trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, and a new trial was granted by the trial court. Upon the second trial there was a mistrial. The third jury found in favor’ of the plaintiff; the court refused a new trial, and the defendant excepted. -

Upon the trial now under review no exception is taken to the charge of the court, and no error of law appears. Hnder the pleadings the only issue was, whether the death of the insured was caused by his own hand or act, or, in other words, whether he committed suicide. While perhaps, there was evidence which would have authorized a finding that he had intentionally killed himself; we can not hold, as a matter of law, that the evidence *761 was sufficient to overcome the presumption of law that he did not kill himself, or that his death was accidental. Moreover, “when an insurance company defends upon the ground of suicide, the burden is upon the company to establish such contention by a preponderance of the evidence.” Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Durden, 9 Ga. App. 797 (1) ; 14 R. C. L., § 416, and cases cited.

In our opinion the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur.

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 →
1934: 11940: 11941: 11968: 119342026peak 1934 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Wells v. Alderman162 S.E.2d 18 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968)
  2. Haugabrooks v. Metropolitan Life Insurance12 S.E.2d 163 (Ga. Ct. App. 1940)
  3. New York Life Insurance Co. v. Ittner14 S.E.2d 203 (Ga. Ct. App. 1941)
  4. Goodson v. State176 S.E. 916 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934)

Most recent

  1. Wells v. Alderman162 S.E.2d 18 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968)
  2. New York Life Insurance Co. v. Ittner14 S.E.2d 203 (Ga. Ct. App. 1941)
  3. Haugabrooks v. Metropolitan Life Insurance12 S.E.2d 163 (Ga. Ct. App. 1940)
  4. Goodson v. State176 S.E. 916 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934)

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.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Mut. Life Ins. v. Durden, 72 S.E. 295 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911) 53

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list