Wallowa chieftain. [volume] (Joseph, Union County, Or.) 1884-1909, 1902-02-13
ODD INSURANCE CASE.
Ali Hung Upon Which One of Two
Died First.


Justice Kenefick has decided the De
cui!ar Soulhwell Inheritance case,
which was tried in the Supreme Court
in Buffalo several months ago. Peter
Southwell and his second wife were
found dead in bed a. their home in Aus
tin. Pa. one night in January. 1900.
They had been asphyXialed 10y gas.
SOulhwell left an Insurance policy for
$500 issued by the Royal Arcanum
and made payable 10 his second wife.
He left Two children by his first wife.
johanna and George W. SouthwelI.
They claimed they had inherited the in
Surance money. but relatives Of Mrs.
SouIEwell No. also claimed il. The
administrator OF The estate. John L.
Gray. refused 10 turn II over 10 either
OF the sets Of claimants until the courts
decided who was entitled 10 il. Then
the Sourhwell children brought suit in
the Supreme Court 10 collect the money.
E-e-yIhinG hinged on the question
0i which NJ the asphyxiated couple died
INST Il Mrs. Southwen died first. she
rha- was made payable 10 her; il would
Then have reverted Ia Southwel's next
Of KIM his TWO children. but il her
death occurred even q single moment
later than that OF her husband then
the ownership OF the money must have
passed 10 her, and upon her death to
. her next q: kin. Those next Of kin
contended that the husband had died
. first Suu-hs'elrs children held that
Mrs. Southwei had died first.
Each side produced numerous medi-
/ cal experts Al the trial to prove by the
/ disclosures of the autopsy on the bodies
/ that the particular side they represent
ed was right. The result was that when
the trial was finished. the question Of
/ survivorship was still very doubtful
. one. and the delicate task of settling
the case was left 10 Justice kenetick.
he spent much time on it and surprised
some Of those interested by the manner
in which he disposed Of the case. He
decided in favor Of the Southweu chill
dren. holding in part. as follows:
IT would serve no useful purpose to
discuss here the reasons assigned by
the various medical witnesses for their
answers to this question. inasmuch as
the court. after careful consideration.
has reached the conclusion that it
would be mere conjecture. surmise and
speculation 10 essay the decision Of
suTvlvOrship in this case upon such tes-
timony. This controversy must be de-
termined. therefore, upon the assump-
tiOn that there is no proof 10 decide
which OF these individuals predeceased
the other. Under such circumstances
the civil law INDUCES in preSumptions
[ based on age and sex 10 aid in deter
mining the surviyorship Of persons per
ishiDg in a common disaster. The CON-
mon law. however, recognizes no pre-
sumptionS on The subject In the alb
sence OF evidence the fact IS assumed
Ia be unaScertainabie. and z rule OF dis
ITibutlon has been adopted whereby
property rights are disposed of as if
death occurred simultaneously.
Under the certificate Of incorpora-
tiop Of the society as we'll as under its
constitution and laws referred 10 above,
this fund was intended for the widow,
children. relatives or dependents OF the
insured; il was not in the power Of the
insured to designate as benefciaries
the person represented by the defend.
ant. Yet the practical effect Of suS.
tanning the defendants claim would
be 10 divert the fund from the insured 5
children and pass il directly 10 the rel.
ativeS Of the beneficiary. Judgmen,
is directed for the plaintiffs according.
ly. but without costs