Court Opinion

ID: 3602421
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 23:48:32.195766+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:57:19.749703
License: Public Domain

[EDITORS' NOTE:  THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 36 
The policy enjoined it upon Welts that he was not to go south of the thirty-sixth degree of north latitude in the United States, and not to enter into any military or naval service whatsoever, without the consent of the company, indorsed in writing upon the policy, under the penalty of rendering the contract void. At the same time with the issuing of the policy, the company, for a further consideration, granted their written permission to go south of the line of latitude mentioned, for the term of one year, and added to the consent, as a proviso or condition, that it was given with the understanding and agreement, that Welts was not insured by the policy against death from any of the "casualties or consequences of war or rebellion, or from belligerent forces in any place where he may be."
The permission which abrogates for one year the restriction against going south of the thirty-sixth degree of latitude at certain seasons, imposes a new limitation upon the liability of the company, in case of death from certain casualties or consequences of war, rebellion or belligerent forces, which were more to be apprehended in that portion of the United States, at the time the policy was issued, south of the thirty-sixth degree of latitude, and in the vicinity of that line, than the dangers from climatic causes. For the consideration of fifty dollars, the company took the hazard of the climate, and the assured took the risk of the casualties or consequences mentioned.
There is no evidence that the deceased availed himself of the permission to go south of the latitude mentioned; and, at the time of his death, he was clearly north of it, according to approved maps. If there was sufficient evidence, then, to go to the jury, tending to prove that the deceased entered the military service of the United States, or that his death happened from any of the casualties or consequences mentioned in the proviso attached to the written permission to go south, *Page 39 
the direction to render a verdict for the plaintiff was erroneous, and the defendant's exception well taken.
The deceased held no office of a military character, and there is no evidence that he was ever enlisted or enrolled as a private. I am not much experienced in military affairs; but it is generally understood that there is a record of the entry of both officers and privates into the military service. There is, clearly, no evidence of this character.
There is some evidence that he, as well as the mechanics and laborers under his superintendence, were at work by the month. That does not indicate military obligation. The fact that he and the others were paid by the military paymaster, proves nothing, on the question whether the deceased was in the military service. Such payment might be so made without having entered that service. His employment was not belligerent. On the contrary, the most decided non-resistant might consistently do the same work. It is urged that the railroads were under a military director, and were used for military purposes exclusively. The roads could not be so used until bridges were constructed; and I am unable to perceive that a civilian might not engage in their construction without losing his standing as a non-combatant. Suppose that the military director of railroads employed the deceased, and that he was subject to his authority while so employed; it does not necessarily follow that he had entered the military service. Entering the military service, within the meaning of the policy, must be taken in its strict or limited sense, as most advantageous to the assured, as well as all other provisions therein. The company frame the policy and choose the language. If there is anything uncertain, it is the right of the assured to enjoy the most favorable rule of construction. The general understanding of the term includes such persons only as are liable to do duty in the field as combatants.
There is no evidence that the widow is entitled to a pension, as would be the case if her husband had perished in the military service of the United States during the rebellion *Page 40 
There is, in my opinion, an entire absence of any evidence that the deceased was in any military service, according to the meaning of the policy. Did he lose his life by the casualties or consequences of war, rebellion, or from belligerent forces? Certainly there is no evidence that this party of four, who came without any of the insignia of war, armed with revolvers only, and doing nothing for the service of the public or Confederate cause, but confining their operations to robberies for their personal advantage, and to the murder of an unarmed man, not in the dress of a federal soldier, constituted a belligerent force, or any part of such force. The war or rebellion may be a remote cause of the death, as it was the cause of disorder and lawlessness; but the proximate cause is murder and highway robbery.
It would be a very unnatural and forced construction that would relieve the defendants from liability, by holding that the four robbers and assassins who murdered Philip J. Welts, and robbed the mechanics and laborers whose work he was superintending, were acting under the authority of the Confederate States. Had the defendants intended to attach such a meaning, the provision would have been directly for exemption from liability for death by violence. The language used can be considered as including only death from casualties or consequences of war or rebellion, carried on or waged by authority of some de facto government, at least. No evidence was produced tending to bring the defendant's case within any such limit.
There were no facts for the consideration of the jury.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed. *Page 41