{ "id": 2417893, "name": "The Northwestern Benevolent and Mutual Aid Association of Illinois v. Sarah W. Bloom", "name_abbreviation": "Northwestern Benevolent & Mutual Aid Ass'n v. Bloom", "decision_date": "1886-08-26", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "159", "last_page": "165", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "21 Ill. App. 159" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "39 N. J. L. 89", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.J.L.", "case_ids": [ 351432 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/njl/39/0089-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 Den. 75", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Denio", "case_ids": [ 2186127 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/denio/2/0075-01" ] }, { "cite": "8 Wend. 160", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wend.", "case_ids": [ 2147357 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/wend/8/0160-01" ] }, { "cite": "4 Hill, 330", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Hill,", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "14 Barb. 383", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Barb.", "case_ids": [ 4918508 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/barb/14/0383-01" ] }, { "cite": "47 Cal. 416", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal.", "case_ids": [ 1952142 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/cal/47/0416-01" ] }, { "cite": "8 Conn. 458", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Conn.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "4 Wis. 20", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "case_ids": [ 8712890 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/wis/4/0020-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 Duer, 481", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Duer", "case_ids": [ 1328096 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ny-super-ct/9/0481-01" ] }, { "cite": "27 Ill. 71", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5247418 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/27/0071-01" ] }, { "cite": "15 Gray, 249", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Gray", "case_ids": [ 2089307 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/81/0249-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 U. S. 377", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 8782 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/us/92/0377-01" ] }, { "cite": "59 Ill. 123", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5232023 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/59/0123-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 Ill. 235", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5205049 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/28/0235-01" ] }, { "cite": "59 N. Y. 557", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 521431 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ny/59/0557-01" ] }, { "cite": "27 Fed. Rep. 25", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "case_ids": [ 3768502 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/f/27/0025-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 Ill. App. 201", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 4877915 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/14/0201-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 Ill. 551", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5372853 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/110/0551-01" ] }, { "cite": "13 Ill. App. 510", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 4865777 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/13/0510-01" ] }, { "cite": "109 Ill. 366", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2854237 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/109/0366-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 Heisk. 567", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Heisk.", "case_ids": [ 8539991 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/tenn/54/0567-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 N. Y. 561", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 2166429 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ny/70/0561-01" ] }, { "cite": "17 Fed. Rep. 25", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "111 Ill. 284", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 828361 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/111/0284-01" ] }, { "cite": "112 Ill. 466", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2861943 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/112/0466-01" ] }, { "cite": "113 Ill. 475", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2865907 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/113/0475-01" ] }, { "cite": "17 Ill. 467", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2593308 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/17/0467-01" ] }, { "cite": "4 Cush. 54", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cush.", "case_ids": [ 1986259 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/58/0054-01" ] }, { "cite": "15 Ill. App. 266", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 6045950 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/15/0266-01" ] }, { "cite": "104 U. S. 197", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3492351 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/us/104/0197-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 Am. Rep. 830", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "Am. Rep.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "48 Wis. 535", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "case_ids": [ 8706947 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/wis/48/0535-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 Wis. 622", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "case_ids": [ 8708339 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/wis/45/0622-01" ] }, { "cite": "9 Allen, 540", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Allen", "case_ids": [ 2118845 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/91/0540-01" ] }, { "cite": "8 How. 235", "category": "reporters:scotus_early", "reporter": "How.", "case_ids": [ 3350677 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/us/49/0235-01" ] }, { "cite": "8 Met. 114", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Met.", "case_ids": [ 1964761 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/49/0114-01" ] }, { "cite": "6 Fed. Rep. 672", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "case_ids": [ 6737456 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/f/6/0672-01" ] }, { "cite": "22 Wall. 47", "category": "reporters:scotus_early", "reporter": "Wall.", "case_ids": [ 3408538 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/us/89/0047-01" ] }, { "cite": "98 Mass. 381", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 710670 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/98/0381-01" ] }, { "cite": "10 Am. Rep. 166", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "Am. Rep.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "17 Minn. 497", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Minn.", "case_ids": [ 560854 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/minn/17/0497-01" ] }, { "cite": "103 Ill. 91", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "10 Ill. App. 545", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 852656 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/10/0545-01" ] }, { "cite": "35 Conn. 225", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Conn.", "case_ids": [ 487762 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/conn/35/0225-01" ] }, { "cite": "111 Ill. 288", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "17 Ill. 467", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2593308 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/17/0467-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 645, "char_count": 11801, "ocr_confidence": 0.51, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.3215877972523363e-07, "percentile": 0.7900665251140124 }, "sha256": "1a3672cc41438635c0ff5799aacfce49d819e34296b0ef49ffc544469b1569a3", "simhash": "1:b6198fd4d4d25546", "word_count": 2059 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:33:21.717522+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "The Northwestern Benevolent and Mutual Aid Association of Illinois v. Sarah W. Bloom." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Congee, J.\nOn the 3d day of March, 1882, Lewis H. Bloom made application for a certificate of membership in the appellant company upon one of the printed forms prepared by the company, which, after giving a number of answers as to the condition of his health, family, etc., contained the following claim: \u201cIt is expressly stipulated and agreed that the foregoing application and declaration shall be the basis of the contract between the above named applicant and \u25a0the Horthwestern Benevolent and Mutual Aid Association of Illinois, said contract not to be in force or binding upon the association until after the payment of the membership fee and the approval of the application by the medical director, and that if any misrepresentations or fraudulent or untrue answers have been made, or any facts which should have been stated have been suppressed, if death should result from suicide, or if he or she shall omit, neglect or refuse to pay any of the assessments on or before the day on which they shall fall due then, and in either event, this agreement shall be null and void, and all money which shall have been paid shall be forfeited to the association.\u201d\n(Signed) \u201c Lewis H. Bloom.\u201d\nUpon this application, on March 8, 1882, the association issued a certificate of membership providing for the payment within sixty days after the death of said Bloom, to his wife, Sarah W. Bloom, appellee herein, $2,000.\nThe said certificate or policy contained this clause: \u201c This certificate is issued upon the condition that the said Lewis H. Bloom shall comply with the constitution and by-laws of the association, and that the statements in the application for this certificate arc true.\u201d\nBloom died and his wife brought suit upon the certificates and to the declaration appellant filed eight special pleas, setting up in a variety of ways, as a defense to the action, the suicide of Lewis H. Bloom.\n\u2018 In the first special plea the language in which the suicide is charged, is, \u201c Did wrongfully, and to the injury of the defendant, commit suicide.\u201d In the second, \u201c He, the said Lewis H. Bloom, committed suicide, and the death of him, the said Lewis H. Bloom, did then and there result from said suicide.\u201d In the third the language is, \u201c Did then and there, immorally, \"wrongfully and wickedly, for the purpose of destroying his life, strangle himself by means of hanging himself by the neck until he was dead.\u201d In the sixth and seventh, the language is, \u201cWrongfully, wickedly and fraudulently, and of his own volition, committed suicide.\u201d\nThe eighth special plea sets forth the clause above quoted of the application, avers it to be a part of the contract of insurance, and a part of the policy or certificate, and concludes with the charge of suicide .upon the part of Bloom.\nA demurrer was filed to all these pleas and sustained by the court; appellant refusing to answer further judgment was rendered against it for $2,162.20. It is claimed by appellee, \u201cthat the application not being incorporated into the certificate, and not being expressly referred to in it, so as to make it a part and parcel thereof, should not be considered in construing the contract between these parties.\u201d\nWe are of opinion that the application and certificate were executed as parts of the same transaction; that they should be taken and construed \"together as one instrument, and that the true nature of the contract entered into can be determined only by considering the mutual undertaking of both parties as set forth in both. Stacy v. Randall, 17 Ill. 467.\nIn the language of Boyal Templars of Temperance v. Curd, 111 Ill. 288, \u201c the first part of this contract \u2014 the part obligatory upon the beneficiary \u2014 is the application of Lewis H. Bloom.\u201d\nIt is plain and simple in its language, and can not be misunderstood. It contains this: \u201cIt is expressly stipulated and agreed that the foregoing application and declaration shall be the basis of the contract, * * * that if death should result from suicide * * * then this agreement shall be null and void.\u201d What agreement is meant? Certainly not the application, for that is not in itself a contract but simply a proposal on the part of Bloom. The agreement that is to become null and void in case of suicide by Bloom is the mutual and entire contract of insurance entered into by both parties, and set forth and contained in both the application and certificate.\nBeither is it important to determine whether the performance of the agreement, contained in the application, not to commit suicide, is or is not a condition precedent to the enforcement of the contract. Appellant is not now relying upon that point even if true, nor complaining because the declaration does not aver a compliance with the provision, but by its pleas, itself brings it forward and sets it up as a defense.\nIt is also objected that none of the pleas expressly allege that Bloom committed suicide when sane. We are inclined to think, however, that after construing the language used by the pleader most strongly against him, there can be no reasonable doubt as to the meaning upon this point of the third, sixth and seventh pleas.\nIn the third, the language is, \u201c Did then and there immorally, wrongfully and wickedly \u201d and in the sixth and seventh, \u201c Wrongfully, wickedly and fraudulently, and of his own volition, commit suicide.\u201d\nThese expressions can not properly be used in reference to the act of an insane man. One whose reason is dethroned, and who is acting from an insane delusion, does not act immorally, wrongfully, wickedly or fraudulently. We-think these pleas do substantially, and not merely argumentatively, allege that Bloom committed suicide when sane, and in his right mind, and therefore do allege such a violation of the contract as, by its terms, renders it null, and void.\nWe think the Circuit Coxirt erred in sustaining the demurrer to these pleas, and the judgment of the Circuit Court will therefore be reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.", "type": "majority", "author": "Congee, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Messrs. Carter & Grover and T. B. Pape, for appellant.", "Mr. J. F. Cabeott, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "The Northwestern Benevolent and Mutual Aid Association of Illinois v. Sarah W. Bloom.\nLife Insurance\u2014 Suicide \u2014 Construction of Application and Certificate Together as one Instrument \u2014 Pleading.\n1. In an action brought on a certificate or policy of life insurance, the assured having committed suicide, it is held that the application, containing a stipulation excepting death from suicide from the risk, must be construed with the certificate as one instrument.\n2. An allegation that the assured \u201c did then and there immorally, wrongfully and wickedly\u201d commit suicide, is substantially an allegation that he committed the act while sane,\n[Opinion filed August 26, 1886.]\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Adams County; the Hon. William Marsh, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Carter & Grover and T. B. Pape, for appellant.\nThe agreements contained in the application are made warranties by the clause in the certificate referring to them. Blisson Life Ins. 85, and cases cited in note 2; Kelsey v. Universal L. Ins. Co., 35 Conn. 225; Fame Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 10 Ill. App. 545; S. C., 103 Ill. 91; Miles v. Conn. Mut. L. Ins. Co., 3 Giay, 580.\nIf they should be considered representations, they are as a-matter of law'made conclusively material. Fame Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 10 Ill. App. 545; Price v. Phoenix Mut. L. Ins. Co., 17 Minn. 497; S. C., 10 Am. Rep. 166; Campbell v. New Eng. Mut. L. Ins. Co., 98 Mass. 381; Jeffries v. Life Ins. Co., 22 Wall. 47.\nThe failure to perform a material promissory representation avoids the policy. Schultz v. Mut. L. Ins. Co., 6 Fed. Rep. 672; Houghton v. Manufacturers Mut. L. Ins. Co., 8 Met. 114; Clark v. Manufacturers Ins. Co., 8 How. 235; Kimball v. \u00c6tna Ins. Co., 9 Allen, 540; Blumer v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 45 Wis. 622; S. C., 48 Wis. 535; S. C., 33 Am. Rep. 830.\nThe language of the certificate makes the performance of the agreements in the application a condition precedent to the enforcement of the contract. Schultz v. Mut. L. Ins. Co., 6 Fed. Rep. 672; See also Insurance Co. v. Trefz, 104 U. S. 197.\nWhere two instruments' are executed as parts of the same transaction, whether at the same or different times, they will be taken and construed together as one instrument. Neil v. Chessen, 15 Ill. App. 266; Hunt v. Frost, 4 Cush. 54; Stacy v. Randall, 17 Ill. 467; Gardt v. Brown, 113 Ill. 475; Torrence v. Shed,. 112 Ill. 466.\nThe application in this case is not merged in the certificate of membership, but together with that forms the contract of insurance. It contains the agreements entered into by the insured, while the certificate contains the obligations assumed by the benevolent association. Supreme Council of Royal Templars of Temperance v. Curd, 111 Ill. 284; Caffery v. John Hancock L. Ins. Co., 17 Fed. Rep. 25; Grattan v. Metropolitan L. Ins. Co., 92 N. T. 274; Blooming Grove Mut. F. Ins. Co. v. McAnerney, 102 Pa. St. ,335.\nSanity will be presumed, and if insanity be relied on to avoid the consequences of suicide, it must be pleaded and proved. Weed v. Mut. Ben. L. Ins. Co., 70 N. Y. 561; Phadenhauer v. Germania L. Ins. Co., 7 Heisk. 567; S. C., 19. Am. Rep. 623; Knickerbocker L. Ins. Co. v. Peters, 42 Md-414.\nThe contract sued on in this case is a contract with the insured, and not with the beneficiary. Highland v. Highland, 109 Ill. 366; S. C., 13 Ill. App. 510; Johnson v. Van Epps, 110 Ill. 551; S. C., 14 Ill. App. 201.\nThe beneficiary is bound by all of the covenants and agreements contained in the contract. Caffery v. John Hancock Mut. L. Ins. Co., 27 Fed. Rep. 25; Fitch v. Am. Pop. L. Ins. Co., 59 N. Y. 557.\nMr. J. F. Cabeott, for appellee.\nThe plaintiff need not aver the truth of statements contained in the application.. Herron v. Peoria Mar. and F. Ins. Co., 28 Ill. 235; M. B. L. Ins. Co. v. Robertson, 59 Ill. 123; Piedmont Ins. Co. v. Ewing, 92 U. S. 377.\nThe plaintiff need not aver the performance or non-performance of conditions subsequent. Forbes v. Am. Mut. L. Ins. Co., 15 Gray, 249; \u00c6tna Ins. Co. v. Phelps, 27 Ill. 71.\nNor the performance or non-performance of negative prohibited acts. Hunt v. Hudson Riv. F. Ins. Co., 2 Duer, 481. Troy F. Ins. Co. v. Carpenter, 4 Wis. 20.\nNor need he allege that he is within the excepted risks. Lounsbury v. Protection Ins. Co., 8 Conn. 458; Ferrer v. Home Mut. Ins. Co., 47 Cal. 416.\nThe certificate contains no warranty. The authorities define a warranty in insurance to he a part of the contract, evidenced by the policy, and a binding agreement that the facts stated are strictly true. 1 Phil. on Ins., 5th Ed., Secs. 754, 756; Flanders on Ins., 204-5.\nTo constitute a warranty it must be contained in the policy; or if contained in another instrument it must be made part of the policy by the agreement contained in the policy. Wall v. Howard Ins. Co., 14 Barb. 383.\nA representation in insurance may, for the purpose of this case, be defined to be a statement in regard to a material fact made by the applicant for insurance to the insurer, with reference to a proposed contract of insurance. 1 Phil, on Ins., Sec. 524 et seq.\nAs representations simply, they are not a part of the contract of insurance. Flanders on Ins., 201, and cases cited; Campbell v. New Eng. Mut. L. Ins. Co., 98 Mass. 381.\nA representation is of some matter extrinsic to the contract, and generally, if not always, relates to the present state and condition of the subject insured. Alston v. Mechanics Mut. Ins. Co., 4 Hill, 330.\nA stipulation or representation relied upon as a warranty should either be written in the policy, or expressly made a part of it; for the policy is the only legal evidence of what the contract is. Dow v. Whetten, 8 Wend. 160; Jennings v. Chenango Co. Mut. Ins. Co., 2 Den. 75; Am. Life Ins. Co. v. Day, 39 N. J. L. 89; M. B. L. Ins. Co. v. Robertson, 59 Ill. 123." }, "file_name": "0159-01", "first_page_order": 155, "last_page_order": 161 }