Legal Opinion

Birmingham Trust & Savings Co. v. Acacia Mut. Life Ass'n

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided October 9, 1930No. 6 Div. 693PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAnderson, C. J.

The trial court did not commit reversible error in giving the defendant’s requested charge set out in the fourth assignment of error and which we number 4 on the margin of the record. It asserts a truism and the criticism against same is highly technical, though perhaps justified,' in a sense, by some of the courts and text-writers. As we understand, the charge means this and nothing more, that, as the law presumes that the intestate came to his death from natural causes, it was incumbent upon the defendant to show that he took his own life, and, when the defendant introduced the certificate…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Higman v. CamodySupreme Court of Alabama · 1895
  2. Starks v. ComerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1914
  3. Newell Contracting Co. v. GlennSupreme Court of Alabama · 1926

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Fleetwood v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1945
  2. American Life Ins. Co. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1937
  3. King v. AirdSupreme Court of Alabama · 1949
  4. Smith v. Civil Service Board of City of FlorenceCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1974
  5. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. v. WigleySupreme Court of Alabama · 1947

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API