HENDERSON v. CAPITAL LIFE HEALTH INS. CO

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

15356

Attorney(S)

Mr. D. McK. Winter, of Columbia, for appellant, cites: As to fraud: 165 S.E., 190; 166 S.C. 523; 166 S.E., 346; 167 S.C. 345; 167 S.C. 434, 166 S.E., 502; 175 S.C. 153; 178 S.E., 618; 9 S.E.2d 41; 9 S.E.2d 788. As to waiver and payment: 166 S.E., 94; 167 S.C. 112; 93 S.E., 197; 107 S.C. 536; 63 S.E., 679; 150 N.C. 143; 165 S.E., 918; 45 Ga. App., 631; 127 S.E., 367; 131 S.C. 8. As to authority of agent: 190 S.E., 239; 178 S.E., 867; 175 S.C. 182. Mr. J. Carl Kearse and Mr. Julius B. Ness, of Bamberg, and Mr. Carlisle Roberts, of Columbia, for respondent, cite: As to payment of premium: 80 S.C. 264, 61 S.E., 428; 71 S.C. 359; 51 S.E., 125; 165 S.C. 190; 163 S.E., 133; 112 S.C. 436; 100 S.E., 157; 186 S.C. 26; 194 S.E., 628; 157 S.C. 469; 154 S.E., 855; 107 S.C. 536; 93 S.E., 197; 150 N.C. 143; 63 S.E., 679; 45 Ga. App., 631; 165 S.E., 918; 131 S.C. 8; 127 S.E., 367. As to breach accompanied by fraudulent act: 175 S.C. 161; 178 S.E., 615; 167 S.C. 434; 166 S.E., 502; 162 S.C. 303; 160 S.E., 721; 175 S.C. 153; 178 S.E., 618; 176 S.C. 275; 180 S.E., 35; 182 S.C. 240; 188 S.E., 864; 183 S.C. 242; 190 S.E., 713; 192 S.C. 71; 5 S.E.2d 568; 111 S.C. 37; 96 S.E., 697. As to error of trial Judge: 51 S.C. 114; 28 S.E., 200; 135 S.C. 89; 133 S.E., 215; 45 A.L.R., 172.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

HENDERSON v. CAPITAL LIFE HEALTH INS. CO.

January 26, 1942.

Per curiam.

The facts of this case, and the main issues raised by the appeal are so clearly set forth in the order of Judge Oxner refusing motion for new trial, which will be reported, it is deemed unnecessary to restate them. The order also satisfactorily disposes of practically all of the legal questions raised by the exceptions, the result of which is approved by this Court.

Appellant contends that the numerous questions asked and comments and rulings made by the presiding Judge during the trial in the presence of the jury separately and taken as a whole were prejudicial to defendant and tended to create an impression of a favorable tendency toward respondent. We have carefully read and considered the record and it does not in our opinion sustain these contentions.

Other questions raised by the exceptions are either directly disposed of in the order refusing a new trial, or are so closely and inseparably related thereto, as to be necessarily concluded thereby, and do not require special comment. All of these questions, however, have been duly considered and are found to be lacking in merit.

The judgment is, therefore, affirmed and all exceptions overruled.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BONHAM and MESSRS. ASSOCIATE JUSTICES BAKER, FISHBURNE and STUKES concur.

HENDERSON v. CAPITAL LIFE HEALTH INS. CO.

Comments