Skip to main content
· 12/8/1902

Knights Templars' & Masons' Life Indemnity Co. v. Jarman

Citations

  • 187 U.S. 197
  • 23 S. Ct. 108
  • 47 L. Ed. 139
  • 1902 U.S. LEXIS 791

Syllabus

<p>1. That section of the Revised Statutes of Missouri declaring that in all'suits upon policies of life insurance it shall be no defence that the insured committed suicide, applies not only to cases where the insured takes his own life voluntarily and in full possession of his mental faculties, but to all cases of self-destruction by the insured, whether sane or insane, unless he contemplated suicide at the time he made his application for the policy.</p> <p>The fact that this court has held that a clause avoiding a policy in case the insured should die by his own hand applied only where the insured intentionally took his own life while sane, does not estop the court from giving a different construction to a statute embodying an importantquestion of public policy.</p> <p>2. While under the decisions of the Supreme Court of Missouri it must be held that the above statute was repealed by the act of ISST, authorizing the incorporation of insurance companies on the assessment plan, as to policies thereafter issued, this statute of 1887 was prospective in its operation, and with respect to policies issued anterior to the date of that act, the .rights of the parties are to be determined by the suicide statute.</p> <p>It was further held that a law passed in 1897, specially applying the suicide-statute to insurance companies doing business upon the assessment plan, was constitutional, and applied to this policy, inasmuch as the insured did not die until 1898.</p> <p>3. The promise of the company to pay the plaintiff the sum of 15000 and all ■ the money paid on the policy in assessments, was 'not impaired by subsequent amendments to the constitution, inasmuch as these amendments operated only upon policies thereafter-issued.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • analyzing whether evidence was stale for the purpose of reasonable suspicion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Brown, Hablan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.