Court Opinion

ID: 9827257
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:20:18.206697+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:27.763511
License: Public Domain

On Motion for. Rehearing.
In the opinion, in discussing the question made as to the insured’s connection with the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, this statement was made: “The testimony was undisputed that the insured when a boy 15 or 16 years of age worked as a hand at a still used by his father in manufacturing intoxicating liquor.” The statement is challenged as unfair to defendant in error. We believe it is, in so far as it asserts that the testimony was undisputed that the insured when he worked as a hand at the still was as old as 15 or 16 years. Defendant in error was the only witness who testified as *708to the insured’s work at the still. On his cross-examination by plaintiff in error defendant in error’s testimony was as follows: “Well, as to when I was engaged in the liquor business, it has been about 8 or 10 years. I was engaged in the business with my two brothers Steve B. Blackstone and Mark Blackstone. As to when I ceased to have any connection with the business, well, as far as the connection goes, the still is there yet, but there has not been any whisky made there by any of the family in, I don’t know, it must have been six or eight years. I could not say exactly. The still is on my place. A brother of mine done the distilling. Brother Mark done the distilling. He is a single man. Yes, sir; my son Harvey A. Blackstone was about the still when he was a kid. He was there, of course. As to what he did in connection with the still, I would say nothing hardly ever. Sometimes he worked there as a hand. Sometimes he went there and worked about there, but he did not know anything about making whis-ky.” On his redirect examination by his own counsel, defendant in error testified: “I couldn’t say how long it has been since I engaged in the manufacture of whisky, operating a still out there. It must be six or eight years. Q. Why, hasn’t, it been 16 or 17 years, to refresh your memory? A. Yes; let me see, I believe we made whisky there in ’92. It has been longer than I thought it had, or the time slipped off with me. It has been longer than I thought it was. Harvey was 22 the day before he was killed, and you can go back and sorter tell how old he was then. It has been longer than I thought it was. I couldn’t tell. I know the whole business was run dow.n. Yes, sir; it was a licensed still. We had a government man with us all the time. I couldn’t say how old Harvey was when he worked around there. He was mighty little, but I think he used to help us with the peaches or apples: I think he worked around there some. It seems to me he did. No, sir; I don’t think ’92 is about the last year. I think that was the year we put up the still and commenced making, and we never made any corn whisky only that one year. We never made anything but brandy after that.. No, sir; Harvey wasn’t engaged in the manufacture or sale, or connected with the manufacture or sale to my knowledge after he reached 21.” The insured was killed in August, 1909. He reached the age of 22 years the day before he was killed. The testimony quoted was given in June, 1910.
The conclusion reached by this court that the testimony showed a breach, by the insured of the warranties set up by the plaintiff in error as a reason why a recovery on the policies should be denied is assailed as unreasonable. We do not think so. It was reached in deference to the rule we understand to be established in this state that, without reference to their materiality, such warranties in such a contract, if not literally, must be substantially, true, otherwise the contract cannot be enforced by the party intended to be indemnified by it. We agree that the rule is unreasonable when applied to the facts of such cases as the Hutchinson and Pinson Oases, cited in the opinion, and when applied to the facts of this ease. If we were authorized to do so, we would not hesitate to so change it as to require in cases like those and this one, conclusions radically different from those reached. But, so long as the rule remains unchanged, we cannot do otherwise than enforce it. Therefore the motion is overruled.