Moulor v. Insurance Company/Opinion of the Court

As the judgment which was entered by the Circuit Court was in accordance with the verdict, the only assignment of error which we have to consider is the first, namely, that the court erred in giving to the jury a binding charge to return a verdict for the defendant.

We are of opinion that the evidence did not warrant a peremptory instruction to the jury to find a verdict in favor of the defendant. The testimony of Dr. Mathieu was parol. Its credibility as well as its effect was for the jury, especially as it was not positive and unqualified that Moulor had had the diseases for which the witness had treated him, and as the statements of the examining physicians which were in evidence tended in some degree to prove that he never had. The jury might, perhaps, have drawn the conclusion from Dr. Mathieu's testimony that there had been only predisposition to the diseases, and not the diseases themselves. He stated in regard to the asthma for which he treated Moulor that it was attended with no expectoration, and that there was nothing connected with it to make the patient believe he had it. In regard to the first stages of consumption, according to his statement there was no expectoration of tuberculous matter. He does not state that there was any cough or pain in the chest. There were, then, no external symptoms of either of the three diseases mentioned. Had scrofula existed, it would seem probable the patient must have known it. Yet the doctor states he did not suspect, or have the remotest idea, that he was affected with either of the diseases. That he was treated for them is not conclusive that he had them. The most skilful treatment sometimes is given when the existence of a particular disease is only suspected, not known, and when afterwards it appears the physician was mistaken.

For these reasons we think the testimony was not such as to justify a withdrawal from the jury of the inquiry whether the answer to the seventh interrogatory was untrue.

Nor was it sufficient to enable the court to conclude, without reference to the jury, that the answer to the twelfth interrogatory was untrue. The entire interrogatory should be considered as one. It was, 'How long since the party was attended by a physician? For what disease or diseases?' To this the answer was, 'Not since the year 1847, when he had the yellow fever.' It may well be that the applicant understood the interrogatory as asking information respecting attendance for a particular disease or diseases and their description, especially as the thirteenth interrogatory sought information respecting the party's usual medical attendant, and the name of that attendant was truly given.

Upon the whole, therefore, we think the case should have been submitted to the jury on the evidence.

Judgment reversed, and the cause remitted for a new trial.