{
  "id": 5151857,
  "name": "\u00c6tna Life Insurance Co. v. Mary A. Shoemaker",
  "name_abbreviation": "\u00c6tna Life Insurance v. Shoemaker",
  "decision_date": "1895-07-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "643",
  "last_page": "648",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "59 Ill. App. 643"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 653,
    "char_count": 11323,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.509,
    "sha256": "b7a79ed38611024ae71b4f77181ae4e68747084dc06d70aa7ae142ce5e05af46",
    "simhash": "1:c11408eb0eb143d2",
    "word_count": 2053
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:53:36.719815+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "\u00c6tna Life Insurance Co. v. Mary A. Shoemaker."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mb. Justice Sample\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nOn September 17, 1892, Eichard Shoemaker, the husband of appellee, took out a life insurance policy in favor of his wife. On the 21st day of July, 1893, he was killed by a shot from a revolver held in his own hand. To the declaration, declaring on the policy, the defense of suicide was interposed by plea, the policy by its terms being void in case of suicide. Issue was joined on this plea, on which, alone, the case was tried before a jury. Yerdict and judgment were given for plaintiff, from which this appeal is prosecuted. The contention on part of plaintiff was, the shooting was accidental; on the part of the defendant, that it was intentional. The case is peculiar and tragic. The deceased had had some litigation and trouble with some members of the Lukens family, residing in Metropolis, which,\"on his part, became very bitter. The litigation was closed before the tragedy, but his animosity seemed to deepen. A few weeks before the 21st of July, Eichard Luken was talking with a Mr. Wilson, at the latter\u2019s house, near the gate, when the deceased, as he was passing along the street in a buggy, observed the former, stopped and began to threaten and abuse him, to which Lukens made no reply. A Mr. Davisson testified that he was on intimate terms with the deceased, and just a few days before his death had a talk with him. \u201c He told me about his difficulty with the Lukens boys, and said if he had had his pistol he would have killed them; that he had fought them both; the next time he was going to clean them up. I walked with him to my house and he was telling me that he had spent about $20,000 of his wife\u2019s money and that he was going to leave her just as well off. I asked him how. He said he had taken out,- or would take out, that amount of life policies.\u201d He had $20,000 life insurance at his death. The deceased, a short time before the tragedy, asked Mr. Flannigan, a merchant of-Metropolis, \u201c If, in case a man had a policy on his life, could it be collected if a man committed suicide % \u201d Dr. Cowan testified that on several occasions the deceased asked him which was the most vital part of the body, and \u201c Where, if I was going to kill a man, would I shoot him or stab him, to cause death quick % \u201d The last talk was about two days before his death. \u201c I told him that the best place to be sure was where he would rupture a main artery, or where he would separate a man\u2019s nerves. I told him that he would have four chances in shooting in the region of the stomach; told him the heart was very hard to hit; you would always strike too far in front, or too far back; that there was only one chance to cause death by shooting through the brain * * * and explained what portion of the brain would kill;\u201d says he further told him if, by shooting in the bowels, the aorta was struck, it would be instant death; if it was not struck, there would be death, but it would be lingering and excruciating. Some of these talks had been several years before, but the last one was very shortly before his death. Sunday before the shooting, the deceased obtained a Smith & Wesson revolver of McElyea, and on the evening before, the same kind of a revolver from Fisher, saying he wanted to go to the springs and wanted one that would throw out the shells. On the day of the tragedy he went into the grocery store of his friend Sheppard' and left two revolvers with him, saying, \u201c Take care of them for me; I might be arrested.\u201d He went out and came back in a short time and says, \u201c I don\u2019t think there is any danger now. I gave them to him.\u201d He had before told Mr. Sheppard he would kill the Lukens and then he would be willing to die; but Mr. Sheppard remonstrated with him. For about one week before the shooting, the deceased had visited Mr. Hyderman\u2019s place of business nearly every day, which was situated about seventy-five feet from Lukens\u2019 and inquired about them. As stated by Mr. Hyderman, \u201c When the shooting scrape was, he was there pretty nearly all the afternoon. He was asking where the Lukens were working. I told him they were working on Mr. Holmes\u2019 house, and then he went around and looked through the windows, but couldn\u2019t see them. He called me and said: \u2018 I don\u2019t see them there at work.\u2019 I says, \u00a3 They may be working at the shop.\u2019 He had been there a dozen times and peeped through the back door to see if they were working there that day. He was talking about killing the Lukens. He says to me, \u2018John, I am going to kill all of them.\u2019 I told him, \u2018You put yourself in trouble; you will get in the penitentiary, or they will hang you.\u2019 He says, \u2018Ho officers can arrest me in this town; I will kill myself before the officers can arrest me.\u2019 About supp.er time I said, \u2018 Dick, I must go to supper; I will close up, or you may set here until I come back; \u2019 and I left him there.\u201d About this time, J. It. Lukens and his two boys, Dick and,George, returned from the country to their homes. Dick was married, had a family, and lived near his father, which was only about seventy-five feet from Hyderman\u2019s store, where Shoemaker was left by Hyderman. They had been home only about half an hour, when, about six and a half o\u2019clock, Shoemaker went into the yard where George was and shot him in the head, then turned on Dick, who had his baby in his arms, and shot him down, and shot him again after he was down. Their father came to the rescue, but he was shot through the hip and escaped. He recovered from the wounds, but his sons died in a few minutes. The shots attracted the attention of the people, and Shoemaker was pursued. He had exhausted all the cartridges of both revolvers, and as he retreated, tried to reload one of them. He threatened those who came near him, and finally succeeded in loading one chamber, when at once the revolver was discharged into his bowels, entering \u201c just on the right and a little below the range of the navel,\u201d which caused almost immediate death. At this point the contention begins; the appellee insists the shot was accidental, the appellant that it was intentional. The witnesses agree that Shoemaker, just before he began to retreat, snapped his revolver at the father, J. R. Lukens\u2014some ten shots having been tired before; that then he retreated and attempted to load his revolver, dropped several cartridges on the ground as he moved along, finally stopped near a fence, when the shot was fired, causing almost instant death. Several witnesses were looking at him at the .time, but all necessarily under some excitement. They were closing in'on him on different sides. Several testify that he had the revolver that was fired in both hands, with the muzzle pointed toward his body, handling it as if to close it, when it went off. Others testify that they saw him turn the revolver in his right hand toward the body and fire.\nIn support of the accidental discharge, there is proof that the McElyea revolver was rusty in the hammer or springs, so that when fired the hammer would not slightly rebound and hitch there, off the cartridge, as intended. On one occasion, when handled by McElyea\u2019s son, it went off prematurely, on this account, it is said. There were five persons who witnessed the shooting that is in controversy\u2014\u2022 Eerrell, Robinson, Moreland, Liggett and Keath, The first three say the act was done by Shoemaker while slightly stooping, with the revolver turned upon himself, held in his right hand; the other two say he had the revolver in both hands, in a stooping posture, apparently loading it. All agree the former were the first to reach the body, each of whom testified there was a revolver clasped in each hand, as it lay on the ground; the latter do not contradict that statement. There were no loads in the revolver at that time, as all agree who examined or saw the revolvers examined. Keath says, \u201cHe laid one right down, He broke the other pistol and was loading it. He put one in and put in from three to four. After -he got it loaded, he then took the pistol this way, when he broke it together, That is when it fired. He looked at- me and says, 6 0 John, coma here! I have shot myself.\u2019 I says, 1 Lower your pistol and I will.\u2019 As soon as that pistol fired, he just clasped that pistol that way; it seems this pistol went over here (illugtrating); he fell over on that arm;\u201d meaning the left arm. He further says, \u201cI saw him pick up the pistol after the shot.\u201d Squire Liggett says, \u201c I saw him take his left hand and turn the barrel up. I couldn\u2019t tell what he was. doing. He seemed to be trembling a good deal. When he turned the barrel up the pistol went off. He had the ~butt of the fistol im, his right hcmd, with the finger on the trigger. I thought he died quicker than any man I ever saw.\u201d About twenty grains of morphine were found in his pocket.\nVarious errors are assigned relating to instructions given and refused, rulings on evidence and the motion for new trial. Without elaborating on these points made, suffice it to say the verdict on the facts is not satisfactory. If the case is tried again, it is suggested the word \u201cwillful\u201d be left out of the instructions and they be confined to the sharp issues made of intentional death; that instruction Ho. 2, refused, of appellant\u2019s, was not strictly covered by other instructions and is properly framed; that the expert evidence be closely confined to expert matter. There was nothing in the facts or issues warranting expert evidence as to the \u201c effects of morphine on a person whose brain is affected,\u201d or any kindred questions. In so holding, we note the evidence of Hyderman, and the condition of hands and body of deceased. Without regard to this holding, probably this question, \u201c Is it not a fact, doctor, that in cases of cerebro-spinal inflammation, or cerebro inflammation proper, that sulphate of morphine is contra-indicated, and that in such cases it acts as a delirifacient instead of a somnificient?\u201d was somewhat difficult for the jurymen to fully comprehend, especially in view of the fact, as shown by this record, they had difficulty in computing interest at five per cent on the policy. In the consideration of this case, the expert evidence as to the sudden and speedy death of Shoemaker, indicating the course of the bullet, has not been overlooked. Facts have been examined and no hypercritical examination has been made of the rulings of the court for an excuse to reverse and remand this cause.\nThe judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mb. Justice Sample"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Courtney & Helm, attorneys for appellant.",
      "E. W. McCartney and C. L. Y. Mulkey, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "\u00c6tna Life Insurance Co. v. Mary A. Shoemaker.\n1. Verdicts\u2014Not Satisfactory upon the Evidence.\u2014Where, upon an examination of the evidence, the verdict is not satisfactory upon the facts, the judgment upon it will be reversed.\n2. Expert Testimony\u2014 When Not Warranted.\u2014In an action on an insurance policy, upon the issue of accidental death or suicide by shooting,. there is nothing to warrant expert evidence as to the effect of morphine on a person whose brain is affected, or kindred questions.\nAssumpsit, on a policy of life insurance. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Massac County; the Hon. Joseph P. Robarts, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the February term, 1895.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed July 1, 1895.\nCourtney & Helm, attorneys for appellant.\nE. W. McCartney and C. L. Y. Mulkey, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0643-01",
  "first_page_order": 641,
  "last_page_order": 646
}