Eminent Household of Columbian Woodmen v. Gaunt
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Saline Circuit Court; W. II. Evans, Judge; 1. The arm was not broken and no proof of loss or injury was made as required by the provisions of the policy. 123 Ind. 544; 24 N. E. 221; 7 L. B. A. 339. 2. There was error in the instructions given. 27 111. 324; 163 Kj. 146; 42 Okla. 98. 1. The jury found that the arm was broken.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Saline Circuit Court; W. II. Evans, Judge; 1. The arm was not broken and no proof of loss or injury was made as required by the provisions of the policy. 123 Ind. 544; 24 N. E. 221; 7 L. B. A. 339. 2. There was error in the instructions given. 27 111. 324; 163 Kj. 146; 42 Okla. 98. 1. The jury found that the arm was broken. This is conclusive. 70 Ark. 513; 64 Id. 236 2. The provision as to proof of injury was substantially complied with and formal proof was waived. 51 Vt. 520; 108 Ind. 270; 115 N. Y. 506; 145 Mass. 134; 160 N. W. 266. 3. There is no error in the instructions.…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Appellee was the holder of a beneficiary certificate in the appellant company, which contained a covenant that he should receive the sum of $200 if he should sustain a broken arm, the payment to be made upon satisfactory proof to the order that the injury had been sustained. The constitution and by-laws of the order, which, by stipulation contained in the beneficiary certificate, became a part of the certificate, provided that, in case a member was injured, the clerk and banker of the local lodge, called Household, should investigate and promptly report the date and cause of disability, and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Standard Life & Accident Insurance v. SchmaltzSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1899
3Cited by2 opinions
- Conley v. Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins.District Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1952
- Illinois Bankers' Life Assurance Co. v. LaneSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1934