Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/187/197
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 01:04:28+00:00

Document:
KNIGHTS TEMPLARS' & MASONS' LIFE INDEMNITY COMPANY, , v. ROSA B. JARMAN.
KNIGHTS TEMPLARS' & MASONS' LIFE INDEMNITY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. ROSA B. JARMAN.
An agreed statement of facts shows defendant to be an Illinois corporation, organized 'for the purpose of furnishing life indemnity or pecuniary benefits to widows,' etc.; and that on October 19, 1885, it issued to John P. Jarman, plaintiff's husband, and a citizen of Missouri, a policy of insurance or certificate of membership, subject to the constitution and by-laws of the company and certain conditions in the policy, one of which provided for its avoidance in case of self-destruction, 'whether voluntary or involuntary, sane or insane.' The seventh stipulation was that 'John P. Jarman, while insane to such an extent as to be incapable of understanding the nature or consequences of his act, took his own life, and came to his death on the 12th day of September, 1898, by a gunshot wound, inflicted by himself. It is not contended, however, by plaintiff that such self-destruction was the result of accident.' The further material facts are set forth in the opinion.
Defendant having refused to pay the amount of the policy on account of the suicide of the insured, Rosa B. Jarman, his widow and beneficiary, brought an action January 19, 1899, in the circuit court of Grundy county to recover the amount of the policy, $5,000, and assessments, which action was subsequently removed to the circuit court of the United States for the western district of Missouri, upon the ground of diversity of citizenship. The case was submitted to the court without the intervention of a jury, and resulted in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $6,006.30, which was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals. Whereupon petitioner sued out a writ of certiorari from this court.
Messrs. S. S. Gregory and Hervey Bryan Hicks for petitioner.
Messrs. Frederick H. Bacon, E. M. Harber, and A. G. Knight for respondent.
This contention is founded upon the ruling of this court in Mutual L. Ins. Co. v. Terry, 15 Wall. 580, 21 L. ed. 236, and cognate cases, to the effect that a similar provision avoiding a policy in case the insured should 'die by his own hand' applied only where the insured intentionally takes his own life, while in possession of his ordinary reasoning faculties, and does not apply when he is unable to understand the moral character, the general nature, consequences and effects of the act he is about to commit, or when he is impelled thereto by an insane impulse, which he has not the power to resist.
But we are of opinion that the word 'suicide' is not used in this statute in its technical and legal sense of self-destruction by a sane person, but according to its popular meaning of death by one's own hand, irrespective of the mental condition of the person committing the act. The result of the construction urged by the defendant would be that, if a perfectly sane man voluntarily and from anger, pride, or jealousy, or a mere desire to escape from the ills of life, puts an end to his life, and thereby becomes guilty of the cirme of self-murder, and of a fraud upon the insurance company, the company would still be responsible, unless it could be shown that the insured contemplated suicide at the time he made his application for the policy; while, if he committed the same act while insane, and therefore irresponsible, the statute would not apply, and the company would not be liable under the terms of the policy, which provided that it should become void 'in case of the self-destruction of the holder . . . whether voluntary or involuntary, sane or insane.' In the one case, as we held in Ritter v. Mutual L. Ins. Co. 169 U. S. 139, 42 L. ed. 693, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 300, that is, of self-destruction by a sane man, not only would the policy be void, whether there were a provision to that effect or not, but even a contract that it should be valid under such circumstances was thought to be against public policy and subversive of sound morality (p. 154, L. ed. p. 698, Sup. Ct. Rep. p. 505), while in the other case of a suicide by an insane person, the insured is guilty of no wrong to the company if he be incapable of understanding the moral consequences of his own act, and there is no reason in law or morals why the company should not pay. It is impossible to suppose that the legislature could have contemplated such a contingency, and a construction that would lead to this result should be deemed inadmissible, unless the language of the statute were too plain to be misunderstood.
The statute was manifestly intended to apply to all cases of self-destruction or suicide, unless the same were contemplated at the time application was made for the policy, and the fact that we may have given a different construction to the same words when used in a policy of insurance does not militate against this theory. The same words may require a different construction when used in different documents, as, for instance, in a contract, and a statute; and identity of words is not decisive of identity of meaning where they are used in different connections and for different purposes. In a contract, the technical rights of the parties only are involved; in a statute, an important question of public policy. If this statute were read alone and disembarrassed by the construction given to these words in policies of insurance, not a doubt would arise as to its application to all cases of self-destruction; and when we examine the theory of the defendant, and find that it leads to the conclusion that the company would be liable if the insured had committed a fraud upon it, and would not be liable if he had taken his life, though guilty of no fraud, the theory must be rejected without hesitation. The construction we have given to the words 'committed suicide' in this act is fortified by reference to § 6570, Mo. Rev. Stat. 1889, referring to the construction of statutes, which provides that 'words and phrases shall be taken in their plain, or ordinary and usual, sense; but technical words and phrases, having a peculiar and appropriate meaning in law, shall be understood according to their technical import.' Undoubtedly the word 'suicide' in its usual sense includes all cases of self-destruction.
2. We are next brought to the consideration of the applicability of the suicide statute (§ 5982) to policies of this company issued at this time. This act, upon its face, applies to all insurance companies 'doing business in this state,' and to all policies issued by such companies after the date of the act. It undoubtedly governs the rights of the parties in this case, except so far as the same may have been modified by an act passed in 1887, authorizing the incorporation of insurance companies on the assessment plan. Section 10 of this act (Laws 1887, pp. 199, 204) is now known as § 5869 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri of 1889, and provides that corporations 'doing business under this article' shall make certain annual statements, which, as well as other requirements, are also made applicable to foreign companies, with the following proviso: 'Provided, always, That nothing herein contained shall subject any corporation doing business under this article to any other provisions or requirements of the general insurance laws of this state, except as distinctly herein set forth.' It appears that the defendant in this case, which is a citizen of Illinois, elected to take advantage of this law, and on June 18, 1888, received from the insurance department of the state authority to do business thereunder upon the assessment plan. As to policies issued upon the assessment plan subsequent to this date and prior to 1897, the supreme court of Missouri held that the suicide statute, above quoted, does not apply. Haynie v. Knights Templars & Masonic Life Indemnity Co. 139 Mo. 416, 41 S. W. 461. To the same effect are Hanford v. Massachusetts Ben. Asso. 122 Mo. 50, 26 S. W. 680; Jocobs v. Omaha Life Asso. 142 Mo. 49, 43 S. W. 375, and Aloe v. Mutual Reserve Life Asso. 147 Mo. 561, 49 S. W. 553. It is true the authority of these cases was somewhat shaken by the recent case of Aloe v. Fidelity Mut. Life Asso. 164 Mo. 675, 55 S. W. 993, which did not involve the repeal of the suicide statute, but of another statute, providing that no misrepresentation should be deemed material, unless the matter misrepresented should have contributed to the death of the insured. The case, however, turned, as did the cases above cited, upon the scope of the proviso of § 5869, and a persuasive opinion was delivered by Judge Valliant in favor of the theory that the proviso was intended to relate only to the organization of the corporations, and the extent to which they should be subject to the supervision of the department of insurance, and under the superintendent's control. This opinion was delivered in the first department of the supreme court, and, there being a dissent, the cause was transferred to the court in banc, wherein a majority of the court apparently differed from the views expressed by Judge Valliant, and reaffirmed the cases above cited. These cases, including the Haynie Case, must therefore be regarded as representing the views of the supreme court that the suicide statute was actually repealed by the act of 1887 as to policies thereafter issued, and that view is, of course, binding upon this court.
But we are of the opinion that this statute was intended to be prospective in its operation, and that the rights of the defendant as an assessment company under the act of 1887 began in June, 1888, with its certificate of authority to do business under that act, and with respect to policies anterior to that date the rights of the parties are to be determined by the suicide statute, § 5855, Rev. Stat. 1889. It must be borne in mind that the repealing act of 1887, now known as Rev. Stat. 1889, § 5869, was not passed as an independent statute, but as § 10 of a new statute of fourteen sections, entitled 'An Act to Provide for the Incorporation and Regulation of Associations, Societies, or Companies, Doing a Life or Casualty Insurance Business on the Assessment Plan.' The prior sections define what shall be deemed a contract of insurance upon the assessment plan, how the corporations are formed, what the policies should specify, giving general details with regard to the management of the business, and then providing, in § 10, for annual statements made by 'every corporation doing business under this act,' with the provision that 'nothing herein contained shall subject any corporation doing business under this act to any provisions or requirements of the general insurance laws of this state, except as distinctly herein set forth.' This whole act, slightly amended in language, was carried into the Revised Statutes of 1889 as chapter 89, article 3. It seems to us quite clear that the dclaration of the proviso that corporations 'doing business under this act' shall not be subject to the general insurance laws of the state, applies only to corporations which took out a certificate of authority from the insurance department to do business on the assessment plan, and to policies thereafter issued by such companies, notwithstanding the fact that such companies may have issued policies under the general insurance laws of the state prior to the act of 1887. The words 'doing business' evidently refer to issuing policies, and not to paying them. A man does business when he contracts obligations; he ceases to do business when he discharges them.
But we do not find it necessary to express an opinion whether, if the act of 1887 were plainly applicable upon its face to antecedent policies, it would be objectionable as impairing the obligation of contracts entered into between the insurance company and insured, inasmuch as we are clearly of opinion that it should not be held to apply to such unless its language imperatively demand it. City R. Co. v. Citizens' Street R. Co. 166 U. S. 557, 565, 41 L. ed. 1114, 1117, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 653.
Were the act of 1887 more ambiguous than it is as to its application to past transactions, we should still be disposed to apply the cardinal rule of construction, that where the language of an act will bear two interpretations, equally obvious, that one which is clearly in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution is to be preferred. Endlich, Interpretation of Statutes, § 178. This rule was applied by this court in Granada County v. Brogden, 112 U. S. 261, sub nom. Granada County v. Brown, 28 L. ed. 704, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 125; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 269, 29 L. ed. 615, 620, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 580, and Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657, 39 L. ed. 297, 301, 5 Inters. Com. Rep. 610, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 207.
We do not wish to be understood, however, as expressing an opinion upon the constitutionality of the act of 1887, if it were applied to prior policies, but simply as holding that, in view of the language of the act, and the doubtfulness of its constitutionality as applied to prior policies, it should only be given effect in cases of policies thereafter issued.
The act was entitled 'An Act to Repeal Section 5869 of Art. 3, Chap. 89, of the Revised Statutes of Missouri of 1889, entitled 'Insurance Companies on the Assessment Plan,' and to Enact a New Section in Lieu Thereof, and Designated as Section 5869' of the same chapter, 'Relating to Statement of Affairs of Assessment Insurance Companies and Misrepresentations Made in Securing a Policy of Insurance and Defense Thereon, for Such Misrepresentations,' and as first introduced contained the section as herein printed in the margin. Subsequently the bill was amended by inserting between the word 'sections' and the figures '5912' the figures '5855' (the suicide statute). This was not strictly germane to the other sections cited, which related to the purposes set forth in the title to the act, and it is argued that the legislature exceeded its constitutional powers in inserting these figures.
As the new act was simply an amendment of § 5869, these two last cases would seem to be decisive of the opinion of the supreme court upon the statute in question, upon which its decision is, of course, obligatory upon this court.
While, as already stated, the supreme court has not decided as to the constitutional power of the legislature to incorporate the suicide statute into this amended § 5869, the decisions above cited, that a mere reference to the section amended is sufficient to sustain the validity of the law, would seem to cover the case, and for this reason the suicide statute, though not strictly germane to the other sections mentioned, is germane to the business of insurance on the assessment plan. Bearing in mind that the suicide statute was originally repealed, as to these policies, by § 5869, as enacted in 1887, it would seem that an amendment introduced into the same section restoring its application to these same policies would not be unconstitutional.
A second objection to the application of this statute is that if the petitioner be right in his contention that, by the repeal of the suicide statute, the contract between the assured and the company relieving the latter from liability in case of suicide, became effective, the legislature could not thereafter, by re-enacting the statute or attempting to subject assessment companies to its provisions, impair the contract subsisting between the assured and this petitioner.
Our corclusion, then, is that the court below was correct in holding that the suicide statute, as originally applied to this policy, had not been repealed at the death of Jarman in 1898, when the cause of action arose.
'Sec. 3. Policies of membership may be issued upon a basis of benefits ranging in amounts to $5,000, but no member shall hold more than one policy at the same time, except one additional policy on the term plan,' etc.
In view of the fact that both of these amendments imply a prospective operation upon policies which may be issued, it would seem to be unnecessary to consider the question discussed with much detail in briefs of counsel, whether the amendments were intended to operate upon policies already issued. In our opinion it is clear that they were not, and conceding the proposition that Jarman had agreed to abide by the constitution, rules, and regulations of the company, as they then were, or might be constitutionally changed thereafter, this agreement could have no operation upon changes which, upon their face, indicated that they applied only to policies thereafter to be issued. To cover this case he should have promised to abide by amendments thereafter made, though they were intended to apply only to future policies.
The judgment of the court below awarding the plaintiff the full amount agreed upon in the policy, without damages, is accordingly affirmed.
AMANDA S. WHITFIELD and the State of Missouri at the Relation of HERBERT S. HADLEY, Attorney General, Petitioners, v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, Connecticut.
EASTERN BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIATION OF SYRACUSE, New York, v. BRIGHT WILLIAMSON.
EDWARD H. HARRIMAN, Appt., v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. NO 315. OTTO H. KAHN, Appt., v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. NO 316. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, Appt., v. EDWARD H. HARRIMAN. NO 317.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 6570
 § 5869
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 5869
 § 5855
 § 5869
 § 10
 § 10
 v. 
 § 178
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 3
 § 5869
 § 5869
 § 5869
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.