Armstrong v. Modern Woodmen of America

Citations

• 105 Wash. 356
• 178 P. 1
• 1919 Wash. LEXIS 586

Syllabus

<p>Insurance (83)—Avoidance of Policy—Fraud—Misrepresenting Age—Evidence—Sufficiency. Upon an issue as to misrepresenting the age of insured, a verdict finding that he was born in 1862 as represented, instead of 1858, is supported where witnesses testified in person to that effect, although they were mistaken as to the place of birth and were contradicted by numerous witnesses, the question being for the jury.</p> <p>Evidence (23, 101)—Presumptions—Capacity to Contract—Ad- . missions Against Interest. Upon an issue as to whether insured was born in 1862 as represented, or in 1858, his contract made in 1880 with his father is not competent evidence that he was twenty-one at that time, as either raising a presumption that he was competent to contract, or as an admission against interest.</p> <p>Appeal (458)—Review — Harmless Error—Facts Otherwise Established. Error in the exclusion of evidence as to what a deceased wife had told witness as to the date of her birth is harmless where he testified as to her age from his own knowledge.</p> <p>Evidence (100)—Declarations—By Person Since Deceased— Age. Upon an issue as to whether insured was born in 1862 as represented, or in 1858, evidence by insured’s son that insured, before making the application for insurance, always claimed he was born in 1862, is admissible.</p> <p>Evidence (34)—Burden of Proof—Shifting—Prima Facie Case. Upon an issue as to whether insured was horn in 1862 as represented, or in 1858, proof of death, stating that he was born in 1858, while making a prima facie ease, does not shift the burden of proof.</p> <p>Chadwick, C. J., dissenting.</p>