Case ID: ny-super-ct_35/html/0386-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.—Sedgwick, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HARVEY WEED, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THE MUTUAL BENEFIT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant.
    The mere fact that a man commits suicide, does not create a legal presumption that he is insane.
    The general presumption is that every man is sane until the contrary is shown by the facts of the case. Suicide is but one fact which unites with all other pertinent facts that are submitted to the jury for a verdict as to whether all the facts in the case establish insanity.
    The decision of the General Term in Coffey v. Home Life Ins. Co., rendered February 1, 1873 {seepage 314 ante), approved.
    Before Monell, Curtis, and Sedgwick, JJ.
    
      Decided April 5, 1873.
    The action was on a policy of life insurance, on the life of James M. Benedict. The policy provided, that in case he should “ die by his own hand,” it should be void, null, and of no effect. The deceased died by shooting himself with a pistol.
    The court charged the jury “that the act of self-destruction, unexplained, is of itself presumptive evidence that the person committing it was not in his right state of mind at the time of the commission of the deed.” The other parts of the charge show that the words “not in his right state of mind,” here used, were intended by the judge to mean “insane.” He had charged that if Benedict, at the time of the firing of the pistol, was insane to an extent which rendered him incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of the act he was about to commit, the plaintiff should have a verdict.
    The judge refused on request to charge that61 James M. Benedict’s shooting himself affords no presumption that he was insane.”
    Exceptions were taken by defendant.
    The plaintiff had a judgment, from which this appeal was taken.
    
      Mr. Alvin O. Bradley, for appellant.
    
      Hon. E. L. Fancher, for respondent.
   By the Court.—Sedgwick, J.

The General Term of this court, in Coffey v. Home Life Ins. Co., argued at the April Term, 1872 (see page 314 ante), passed upon the questions which are raised by the exceptions stated in this case.

That case decided, that under such circumstances as the present, the mere fact that a man kills himself, does not create a presumption that he is insane. The general presumption is, that every man is sane until the contrary is proven by the facts of the case. Suicide is but one fact, which goes with all other pertinent facts to the jury, for the purpose of getting from them a verdict as to whether the facts prove insanity.

The exceptions taken in this case were to matters that raised the question here alluded to.

The judgment should thereupon be reversed, with costs to appellant to abide the event, and there should be a new trial.

Monell and Curtis, JJ., concurred.