The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-10-05

A recent decision June, 1871 Of the Court Of
tovW n as settling susdry perpl King questions
arising IN the practice of life insurance.. Our
extracts following will indicate what, some of
legal and underwriting ability Of our, city. the
local board OF directors Of one OF the life insu-
cIsion and directed the full claim = to be paid
The New Orleans decision preceded that Of
'.The issue of fraud was based upon the gues-
tions and answers in the application for
policy The questions and daa answers relied &c,
habits OF the ntestata In the use Of Intoxicating
drinks. They, must be considered as of the
December. is7o aud . reasonable time, before
and after. He answered that his habits of life
were correct and temperate in all respects that
and had always been SO, It is not easy to find
any definite result from these answers. They
seyed By saying Of MAJ hst he IS 81 ire free and and
generous liver, is contradictory of that given
by saying Of him that he is temperate in all re-
satisfied with lhese OPT osing answers when the
application was made and the policy issued, it
cannot now object.
There was also testimony on the other side
of the question, It wass, to The effect that the
with him; that h 9 habits were good. that they
remember his drinking but very seldom. and
never saw him Intoxicated or under the in
heslthy, man. Of fine physique; that they had
known him 10 refuse LIQUOR when offered, to
e that he was not pereety inc
Though this testimony was, from necessity
OF its character. negative. still 1t was pertinent
question of the habits of sobriety or the con-
trary. 1t needs NUT be weighed with the af-
bn,hr ,sth n o9ufg to AZ
made the answers relied upon by the defendant
do not thiuk hat most men, or al. least many
nlent answer. If they said that their habits of
life We're correct and temperate. and that they
did not use Intoxicating LIQUORS, if they drank
ing to the testimony of the witnesses for the
plaintiffs especially when with that answer is
ivers and had always been so. In comm INN G &C.
ceptation, the latter phrase In iicates those who
s 90 not entirety refiain from the use Of stimu-
, I an Obliged to confess that get no idea
a spdt aors Te
is 4 question which does not direct the mind to
a single or tnciden al u g. but to customary
of the noun use" and he verb 'use" as use
hosgitality one to ano her without grudging."
L was question not indisputably and conclu
whether the interstate could b. SO clearly
charged with such use as that he might plainly
be charged with a fraudulent intent In answer
ing No, to the medical eNa liner: and being
so unsettled, 1t was pre- p to give the solution of
II upon the evidences TO the jury. We have not
lost sight OF the lnterpt citation of the word
given to the july by the court at nisi prius.
II that had been more unfavorab to the de-
PENDANT than tn which we adopt, we might
feel that the defendant should have the benefit
OF a milder cons rnction.
There was "a % a conflict In the whole evil
dence, whether the disease Of which the lntes-
tate died was ag rava ed by intemperance. 1t
was proper that the jury should pass upon it.
1t was not for tie plaintiffs to make out as a
pa OF their case, the negative of that PROPOSE
tinn.
1T was for the defendant to establish It as an
affirmative, the same as they would any breach
by the subject of the Insurance. OF any other
condition subsequent of the olicy. Ii it be
conceded to be n warranty 1t Is not u condi ion
precedent for it does not elatt to thu commence
ment OF the risk. ! IS prum ssory warranty
Which Is not q cUnd ton precedent New York
lille insurance CumpanE vs.. Graham, Duval,
I see no error in the portion ofthe charge ex-
cepted 70, taken in connection with the peculiar
application ana cont. act in this case. 1t vas held
IN Fitch VS.. Popular Life Company, SO N. T.. 557,
on a like applicaf non aud policy. Cha 1t was ne
cessary for the defendant to show. not only that
tho statements were untrue, but thnt tn. were
lent intent. Now. a iraudu 9, intent must, to
some degree at least, d pend upon the under
standing which the applicant has OF the mean
ot thf The ry to find hf
cant at the time he answered. OF course. they
must first find what was his en- option of the
question; Ii according to that conception he
with raudulent intent. They arc to find what
that conception was under the direction of the
court rs to the legal construction of the phrases
gsSpndlng Of the purport of the question. These
Considerations cover ali the points made by the
defendant.
We find no error in the holdings at nisi prius.
and the judgment should be affirmed"
ALI the ludg concur
10