Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1935

Beasley v. Missouri State Life Ins. Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided April 16, 1935 · Stabler, Messrs, Carter, Bonham, Storr

179 S.E. 777; 176 S.C. 156; 1935 S.C. LEXIS 174 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Messrs. Thomas, Lumpkin Cain and Dargan Paulling , for appellants, cite: Policy not in effect until premium paid: 153 S.C. 280 ; 124 S.C. 492 ; 105 S.C. 305 ; 89 S.E., 675 ; 58 S.C. 211 ; 36 S.E., 556 . Fraud vitiates all contracts: 80 S.C. 395 ; 83 Fed., 636. Incontestable clause: 169 U.S. 139 ; 42 L.Ed., 693 ; 42 L.R.A., 261; 50 L.R.A., 774; 75 S.E., 915; 73 S.E., 79; 235 U.S. 99 ; 59 L.Ed., 147 ; 167 S.C. 162 ; 51 S.C. 103 ; 28 S.E., 200 . Insurable interest: 92 S.W. 17; 104 U.S. 779 ; 26 L.Ed., 924 ; 8 A., 628; 44 L.R.A., 417; 19 L.Ed., 244 . Public policy defined: 215 S.W. 90; 124 N.E., 168; 12 A.L.R., 1240; L.R.A., 1916-D, 576; 16 L.R.A. (N.S.), 1020; 61 S.E., 648. Agency: 50 S.E., 290; 74 S.C. 369 ; 148 S.C. 358 ; 79 S.C. 529 ; 60 S.E., 1106 ; 88 S.C. 31 ; 70 S.E., 403 ; 135 S.C. 89 . Demurrer: 161 S.C. 490 ; 154 S.C. 138 ; 151 S.E., 274 ; 158 S.C. 425 ; 155 S.E., 627 . Messrs. Samuel Want, L.M. Lawson, Melvin Hyman and J. Wesley Beasley , for respondent, cite: Incontestable clause: 128 S.C. 239 ; 122 S.E., 586 ; 176 S.E., 333; 177 S.E., 40 ; 70 F.2d 59 . Fraud: 6 A.L.R., 452; 35 A.L.R., 1491; 97 S.C. 418 ; 81 S.E., 964 . Waiver: 135 S.C. 89 ; 133 S.E., 215 ; 175 S.E., 209; 176 S.E., 340 ; 112 S.C. 436 ; 100 S.E., 157 ; 157 S.C. 469 ; 154 S.E., 855 ; 177 S.E., 40; 128 S.C. 239 ; 62 F.2d 711 .

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Stabler.

The history of this controversy and. .the issues involved are fully set out in the elaborate decree of the Circuit Judge and need not be repeated or restated *175 here. We think, from a careful study of the record, that the conclusions and holdings of Judge Mann are correct, except as to the alleged defense that the contract of insurance, if made, was a wagering one. It appears from the more recent decisions of this Court that this defense is available to the insurer after the period of contestability has run, for the reason that such a contract is against good morals and a sound public policy, and is void in its inception. See Hack v. Metz, 173 S. C., 413, 176 S. E., 314, 95 A. L. R., 196; Henderson v. Life Insurance Company (S. C.), 179 S. E., 680.

As to this defense, therefore, the decree, which will be reported, is reversed; in all other respects it is affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Carter and Bonham and Mr. Acting Associate Justice Phirip H. Storr concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.