Case Name: SUN ACCIDENT CO. et al. v. BUNN
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1915-10-12
Citations: 51 Okla. 682
Docket Number: No. 5384
Parties: SUN ACCIDENT CO. et al. v. BUNN.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 51
Pages: 682–683

Head Matter:
SUN ACCIDENT CO. et al. v. BUNN.
No. 5384.
Opinion Filed October 12, 1915.
(152 Pac. 370.)
APPEAL AND ERROR — Verdict—Evidence. Where there is evidence tending to support the verdict in an action at law, this court will not weigh the evidence, but, if it reasonably tends to support the verdict and judgment, they will not be disturbed.
(Syllabus by Devereux, O.)
Error from County Court, Oklahoma County; John W. Hayson, Judge.
Action by Jerry Bunn, administrator of the estate of Frances Bunn, against the Sun Accident Company, a corporation, and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.
Affirmed.
This action was brought on a policy of insurance, whereby' the Sun Accident Company agreed to pay the plaintiff’s intestate certain sums as sick benefit, and also a certain sum in case she died. The other defendants became liable by reason of having purchased the assets of the Sun Accident Company, and assumed its liabilities. The policy contained the following provision, among others:
“Condition number 8 reads, in part, as follows: Indemnity shall not be payable for injuries, * * * or disability, or illness, resulting wholly' or in part, directly or indirectly, from tuberculosis, rheumatism * * * etc.”
The evidence tended to show that the assured had . regularly paid the premiums, and that she was taken sick with acute bronchitis, and that the immediate cause of her death was gastritis, which is inflammation of the stomach and bowels. There was evidence on behalf of the defendants that she died of tuberculosis. There was no exception to the instructions to the jury, nor did the plaintiffs in error ask any special instructions. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendants bring the case to this court by petition in error and case-made, and assign as errors: (1) That the verdict of the jury is not sustained by- sufficient evidence. (2) That the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Moss & Williams, for plaintiffs in error.
Charles B. Selby, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Opinion by
DEVEREUX, C.
(after stating the facts as above). The only assignment of error argued in the brief of the plaintiffs in error is that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence. One of the doctors, who attended the assured, testified that she died of inflammation of the stomach and bowels, while another testified that she died of tuberculosis. In this conflict the jury was the proper tribunal to say what was the cause of her death, and as they have found for the plaintiff we will not disturb the verdict. Avants v. Bruner, 39 Okla. 736, 136 Pac. 593; Peters v. Holder, 40 Okla. 93, 136 Pac. 400.
We therefore recommend that the judugment be affirmed.
By the Court: It is so ordered.