Woodmen of the World v. Hall
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Poinsett Circuit Court; W. J. Driver, Judge; 1. The peremptory instruction should have been given, as there was no evidence to support a verdict. Where the verdict is grossly contrary to law, though in accordance with the instructions of the court, and was totally unsupported by any legal evidence, the judgment will be reversed. 28 Ark. 550; 34 Id. 632; 5 Id. 640; 7 Id. 462; 25 Id. 49. 2. Delivery of a contract is absolutely necessary to its validity.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Poinsett Circuit Court; W. J. Driver, Judge; 1. The peremptory instruction should have been given, as there was no evidence to support a verdict. Where the verdict is grossly contrary to law, though in accordance with the instructions of the court, and was totally unsupported by any legal evidence, the judgment will be reversed. 28 Ark. 550; 34 Id. 632; 5 Id. 640; 7 Id. 462; 25 Id. 49. 2. Delivery of a contract is absolutely necessary to its validity. A delivery was necessary by the terms of the certificate, constitution and bylaws while in good health. 106 Tenn. 695; 52 L. R. A.…
1Opinion of the CourtFrauenthal, J.
This is an action instituted by Etta May Hall to recover upon a certificate of insurance which she alleged was executed upon the life of her husband, and in which she is named as beneficiary. The appellant is a mutual benefit association, and it resisted recovery upon the ground that the alleged certificate was not executed and delivered in accordance with the constitution and by-laws of the order, and, for that reason, never became effective as a contract; and also because the assured had, in his application for the insurance and in his medical examination, made false warranties, which…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Insurance Co. v. WolffSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Borgraefe v. Supreme Lodge, Knights & Ladies of HonorMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
- Franklin Life Insurance v. GalliganSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1903
- McCoy v. Roman Catholic Mutual InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
- Hart v. Fraternal AllianceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Sovereign Camp Woodmen of the World v. NewsomSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920
- Commercial Union Fire Insurance v. KingSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
- Peebles v. Eminent Household of Columbian WoodmenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
- The Homesteaders v. StappCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1918
- International Brotherhood of Boiler-Makers v. WoodSupreme Court of Virginia · 1934
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.