Sovereign Camp, W. O. W. v. Gibbs

There was no error in sustaining the objections to the interrogatories to Dr. Cloyd, the defendant’s “Sovereign physician,” or, if there was as to some, it was without injury, as defendant got the substantial benefit of same under answers to other interrogatories. As to what the witness would have done had he gotten other or different information as to the insured’s health was but a speculative conclusion.

There was no error in sustaining the objection to interrogatory 11 to witness Xates. In the first place it called for the reason or motive of the witness; and, second, the only contention of…