Court Opinion

ID: 9811396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:19:16.214934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:20.738378
License: Public Domain

Douglas, J.,
concurring. I can not dissent from the opinion of the court because it is sustained by the law and the verdict of the jury, but like my brother Montgomery, I am deeply impressed with the fact that the agent Jones is dead, and that the plaintiff alone is left to tell the story of what occurred between them. So much is assumed that is left unsaid in ordinary conversations that misunderstandings *931frequently occur between men both of whom are honest and truthful. We have all doubtless noticed contradictions in testimony between men of equal reputation and apparently of equal knowledge. The only way I can account for this is that men are unconsciously swearing to legal conclusions. For instance, A and B have a long conversation, of which the exact words are probably remembered by neither. A swears that B agreed to do a certain thing, while B swears he did not. A, who is probably swearing, not to B’s words, but to the effect produced on his own mind by the conversation, thinks there was a legal contract; while B, who perhaps regarded the entire conversation as an unclosed negotiation, is equally positive that there was no contract. Under such circumstances the jury alone can determine the question. Where one party is dead and the uncontradicted evidence' comes alone from the other side, the jury is almost compelled to find for the survivor. To remedy this hardship the Legislature passed an Act known as Section 590 of The Code. If Jones’ estate or any one claiming under him were a party to this action, the plaintiff would not be permitted to testify as to any transaction with Jones, but as his estate has no pecuniary interest in the suit, which is against the insurance company alone, such testimony is competent. That the moral interest of the deceased and his family can not be considered is one of the hardships of the law which we are powerless to remedy. It is but just to the plaintiff to say that the terms of the policy itself were apt to mislead him, and I am surprised that the defendant company should make even a conditional representation which is apparently so utterly incapable of fulfilment.