Case Name: CARRIE H. KINSEY, Administratrix, v. JEFFERSON STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1921-03-09
Citations: 181 N.C. 478
Docket Number: 
Parties: CARRIE H. KINSEY, Administratrix, v. JEFFERSON STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 181
Pages: 478–479

Head Matter:
CARRIE H. KINSEY, Administratrix, v. JEFFERSON STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.
(Filed 9 March, 1921.)
Insurance, Life — Policies—Contacts—Suicide—Evidence—Questions for Jury — Trials.
Upon the defense of suicide in an action to recover upon a policy of life insurance, evidence tending to show that the insured was a nervous, irritable, and high-tempered man; that a few minutes before he had finished eating dinner with his family and had gone into an adjoining room, and that his wife, upon hearing a noise, had gone into this room, and found her husband lying on the floor with a pistol wound, from his own pistol, evidently taken by him from the shelf of a book case in this room, where he kept it, fired from very close range into his temple, is sufficient to go to the jury upon the question of whether the defendant had intentionally taken his own life.
Appeal by plaintiff from Bond, J., at December Term, 1920, of JoNES.
Civil action to recover upon a life insurance policy issued by tbe defendant to plaintiff’s intestate, Guy T. Kinsey. Tbe case turns upon a single question. Defendant admitted tbe execution of tbe policy and its liability tbereon, unless its plea of suicide witbin tbe stipulated period was found to be valid. Only one issue was submitted to tbe jury, and answered by it as follows:
“Did tbe insured, Guy T. Kinsey, die by bis own band or act, witb intent to commit suicide? Answer: 'Tes.’ ”
Judgment on tbe verdict in favor of defendant. Plaintiff appealed.
Rouse & Rouse for plaintiff.
Broolcs, Hines & Kelly and T. D. Warren for defendant.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Plaintiff's chief exception is to tbe court's refusal to instruct tbe jury tbat tbe evidence was not sufficient to warrant a finding in favor of tbe defendant. Bearing upon tbis motion, tbe following is 'taken from tbe plaintiff's brief:
"Briefly summarized, tbe deceased bad only a few minutes before finished eating dinner, be bad left tbe table, going into an adjoining room. His wife beard a noise which attracted her attention. She went to tbe room and found her husband lying on tbe floor witb a (pistol-shot) wound, which was shown to be in bis temple, a little above and a little to tbe front of bis right ear. Tbe witnesses locate bis body slightly different, but in tbe main it is agreed by all tbat bis feet were some distance, variously estimated from two to three feet, from a book case, tbat bis bead was towards tbe door, and bis body lying alongside of, witb bis right arm slightly under a table tbat stood between tbe bookcase and tbe door. Tbe deceased's pistol, which usually stayed upon tbe bookcase, was found slightly under tbe bookcase from tbe deceased's bead as it lay upon tbe floor, tbe distance to tbe pistol was in addition to tbe length of bis body, two or three feet to tbe bookcase."
In addition, there was evidence tending to show tbat the intestate was a heavy drinker; tbat be bad been drinking for two days immediately preceding bis death; tbat be was a nervous, irritable, and high-tempered' man; tbat tbe wound on bis bead was black and ragged, and tbe hair scorched, indicating tbat tbe pistol was held in close proximity to bis bead at tbe time it was fired.
Upon tbis evidence we think bis Honor very properly submitted tbe issue to tbe jury, and tbat they were warranted in answering it in tbe affirmative.
We have carefully examined tbe record and plaintiff's exceptions, and find no error of which plaintiff can justly complain.
No error.