Walther v. Mutual Life Insurance
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Thornell v. Missouri State Life Ins. (Tex. Comm'n App. 1923)
- Germania Life Insurance v. Lewin (Colo. 1897)
- Mar Shee v. Maryland Assurance Corp. (Cal. 1922)
- Tomlinson v. Sovereign Camp of Woodmen of the World (Iowa 1913)
- Mittelstadt v. Modern Woodmen of America (Iowa 1909)
- Craiger v. Modern Woodmen of America (Ind. Ct. App. 1907)
- Supreme Lodge Knights of Pythias of the World v. Beck (9th Cir. 1899)
- Jewett v. Boston Elevated Railway Co. (Mass. 1914)
- Baldi v. Metropolitan Life Insurance (Pa. Super. Ct. 1906)
- Supreme Tent Knights of Maccabees of the World v. Stensland (Ill. 1903)
- Dreier v. Continental Life Ins. Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana 1885)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
This is an action on a policy of insurance on the life of plaintiff’s husband. The policy contained the statement that “ the company does not insure against self-destruction in any form”; it also required proofs of death to be furnished, including statements from attending physicians, a householder, and the undertaker. *
On the trial of this case, the plaintiff, after proving the fact of death, offered in evidence, for the sole purpose of showing compliance with the requirement of the policy, preliminary proof of the death of deceased which had been furnished to the company by the plaintiff, consisting of the proceedings of the coroner’s inquest had upon the body of deceased, a statement by the plaintiff, together with statements by attending physicians, the undertaker, and a householder. It appeared from the evidence of the physician given before the coroner, that the deceased died from the effects of prussic acid; the verdict of the coroner’s
ISFo evidence was offered contradicting the above. The court below found that there was no evidence sufficient to show that the deceased committed suicide, and found that the allegations of the answer that he committed suicide were untrue. This finding was based evidently on the proposition that as the plaintiff offered the papers referred to solely for the purpose of showing that she had complied with the requirements of the policy as to preliminary proof, they would not be considered for any other purpose. This was error. When the papers were in evidence, they were before the court, and showed on their face that the deceased had committed suicide, and for the purposes of the trial, they were prima fade evidence of that fact, and should have been so considered. (Insurance Co. v. Newton, 22 Wall. 32.) Doubtless the plaintiff would have been permitted to overcome, if she could, the presumption raised by the papers, by evidence that the death was from natural causes, but no proof as to the cause of death was offered, save that above noted.
Judgment and order reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.
Thornton, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.
Hearing in Bank denied.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.