1. 152 • • PROGR.ESSIVE 'LIFE INS. CO . V. , DEAN: [192 PROGRESSIVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY V. DEAN. .. . 4-4.3'73 : • Opinioir delivered October : 14 1936. • . INspRAkCE-L7 -Issugs • MADE . . QUES1ION , FOR JURY: The Supreine • : CoUrt cannot invade proVince"of jury 'to -deterinine whether pel: • iey . had' lapsed for failure to par premium, or • was in foree when ' insured was . executed for.'erinie'; it. loblcs-.to' the reeord, Only to ascertain whether there is sufficient evidence , te sustain the verdict. . INSURANCEEXEDU ; n0/4 Or I/, *TRED FOR 'GRIME.AD inSbrance • 'contract is s 'PrOperty "and Where there is no proVision in the' eon-: tract exempting the : ,insurer from liability to the benefieiary ; where; the inSured is executed for , crime, public .policy which :is to be gathered . from the . Constitution, statutes, and judicial deci-, sions does • not prohibit recovery on a policy where the insiirud was exeCuted 'for r ' aPe 'committed in Missouri. ; • Appeal from Phillips Circuit .Conrt W., D. , paven-port, Judge ; affirmed. • Moore & Thirke; E: M. Arnold and Duty & DutY, for App011aht:. 'W N.. DiUniUY; ittlii p E y , s, • J. This is, an appeal from a jildg,inent for ,$300 with a penalty of 12 pei cent; and an attorney's • fee in • fav, or ,of appellee, render6d in the ciicrnt 'Conrt'.4 COunty,. againStiappellant; on'an inshrance 15,:t6 iey it' isSned 'thr the life of ..C: D: Ward on . the 16th • daY of FebiuhfS r , 1933;in hidi apP'ellde, Ward .sisté,r;:Was 'inibdasthCbeñefi'ëiär.''' • •' • ' • •• '''The O o r r e d 'r d ef g le that G. D. Ward, the ingnred; Was convicted of the , crime of rape in the state 'Of Misginiri, and 611 the , 19th• . day of A'ugust, was : executed •or the 'crime.: • ' -:• :;,:' ' • : The . record' also reflects a sharp conflict in 'the' tes-•imony •s to Whether' the premiums • on the policy of insurance were paid as they:matured, or within the grace period. • The testimony introduced by appellant tended to show that default was made in the payment of the premium due July 1, 1933, and that, on application, reinstatement was made on August 26, 1933 ; that the policy lapsed again for the nonpayment of the October, 1933,
.PROGRESSly E LIFE INS. CO. v. DEAN: 1153 premium, but Was reinstated on application on Novem-ber 28, 1933; also that the policy.lapsed for nonpayment of the . January, 1935, premium, and that it Was not 'reinstated after lapsing. • •• -The testimony introduced by appellee • tended to show that tbe policy never lapsed for failure to pay any of the premiums during the life of C. D. Ward and that same was in- force and effect _when Ward was .executed for the criine he committed in Missouri. .. The issues of fact arising out of the conflicting testimony were submited to the jury under .correct instructions and were resolved against appellant.. We canna invade •The exclusive province of the-jury to determine issues arising out of disputed 'facts to • pass upon the credibility •of the' several witnesses or • the weight to be given to the testimony Of each. We look to the record only to . ascertain whether there is any substantial evidence to..sustain the Verdict. There is ample evidence in the instant case:to •sustain the verdict and consequent judgment. . • The only remaining question to determine on this appeal.is li T hether the public policy of this state will forbid a recovery against an insurance company where the insured has -been legally executed for a crinie. There- is no provision.in- the poliey exempting appellant from liability to the beneficiary- in case the insured Commits a crime for which he was executed. In the case_ of Hugh Collins, Exr., etc.,Of Robert Kilpatric, DeCeased . v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 232 •Ill. 37, 83 N. E. 542, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) • 356, 122 Am. St. Rep. • 54, 13 A.nn. Cas. 129, it was.decided (quoting Syllabus 1), t_hat: "The personal representative of an insured is not precluded from enforcing _payment of his policy by the fact that insured was -executed for crime, where the Constitution declares that no conviction shall work a corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate, and the statutes make no exCeptioh in the case in the rules of descent and distrithition." . In the case of Fields v. Metropolitan In„surance Company, 147 Tenn. 464, 249 S. W. 798, 36 A. L. R. 1250, it was decided (quoting syllabus), that : 'fIn view of
1454 . PROGRESSIVE LIFE INS. CO . v. DEAN. [192 Const.; art. 1,.§.12, prohibiting corruption' Of -blood or forfeiture of estate- and deedands, which !established the public policy of the • state a opposed : to.. forfeitures for conviction for . crimes, it is not contrary :to- publie policy for 'a life insftrance company to pay : to : -the- 'beneficiary the : amount :of the policy npon the lifd of • one who had - been executed by , the 'state for Murder." . • • • In• both 'cases- referred to;- life 'insurance Contracts are treated as propertY (choses' action) :and*Correctly so. In :136-th these 'cases itis decided-that one who is executed• for crime- does not:forfeit any 'of his property rights: •die may:make such, disposition of his • property before- he- is • execnted as he. -Pleases,: and if he 'does, mot dispose, of his property , in, any. niariner known to the la-W prior td his death, the statute Of descents and . .distributions dispOse: of it for : him just as it- -would the property •of• , any one else 'who . died• 'intestate:- ,-.The...rea§on assigned for the- rule announCed,is that,:the- constitution of' the - state,: declares -a: conViction- •f or crime shall; not work a corruption of the blood or. forfeiture .of .estate. In both cases 'notice' is taken of, the tWo cases 'decided by the:Supreme- Court; of the • 'United States: and .relied-Upon b3i appellant) holding that it is contrary. to •public policy fin, a beneficiary, to reCoVer: on an insurance policy if the in g ured,..was:legally. :executed fdt a crime.. 'The cases of the:-United :States:Supreme Court cited by appellant are 's-tyled,as. follows : Burt v: Union , Central Life Ns: Co1j 187 .• U.,- S. 362 ) • 23 .S.:‘. Ct. 139, " 47 .L.- Ed. \216; .and Northwestern Mutual: Lif 0, Ins. Co.; v: -McCue; 223 S. 234, 32 .S.:Ct. 220-; 56 L. Ed: . 419,. 38 L. 11: A :(N: S.) N..- : In theIllinois -and Tennessee cases referred to above,. mentien, is made of the fact that -the ,SuPreme • Court :of the 'United States -did .not take into account the cOnsti7 tutional .provisions . in our nation and states prohibiting forfeiture of- estate • of • one. attainted with crime, but,• on the . contrary, 'followed the 'opinion of the:,Lord Chancellor for the Honse 'of- Lord§, delivered July 9) 1830, in the case of Amicable Society v. Bourland;. 4 Bligh (N. S.) 194, 6 Eng. Reprint 630. At the time* the Lord. Chaneellor rendered the: opinion, `.` at common law, all the property, real and personal, if, one . attainted-w.as forfeited, and his
ARK..] 1155 blood was so corrupted that nothing could•pass by inheritance to, from, or . throngh him. Thu's, .the . wife, • children, and collateral relationS of the attainted person ,suffered with hith." . • The Constitution of the United States and this state has removed us , from these harsh rules of the common. law, and they shonld not be . enferced in this free -cOuntry on the ground of pnblic policy. . • . . Article .1, § 10; of .the Constitution •of the .-United States, is as•follows : "No • state shall pass any bill of attainder." -Article 2,§ 17, of the -Constitntion of Arkansas, is as follows : • "No bill of attainder * * shall ever be passed.". it has -been .wisely ; said: : "The pnblic policy of a State has.to be sought for in its Constitution, legislative enactments, and judicial -decisions." . • Of . ceurse, in arriviiig at the public policy of a State, legislative enactthents Enlist yield tO 'constitutional provisions, and judicial decisions must recognize and yield to constitutional provisions and legislative enactments. Our Constitution -has declared the public policy applicable to, the case at bar, and we must respect it-.as the first and highest declaration of public policy. . • No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.