Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Rutledge

2 Citing cases

  1. Stump v. New York Life Ins. Co.

    114 F.2d 214 (4th Cir. 1940)   Cited 1 times

    There is a conflict of authorities as to what is necessary to offset the presumption of death at common law. A number of cases hold that proof that the missing person is a fugitive from justice is sufficient under the common law and under various different statutes, other cases hold that where the presumption is one of law and not of fact, or not a mixed presumption of law and fact, such proof is not sufficient to offset the presumption. This question is discussed in the following cases: Magness v. Modern Woodmen, 146 Iowa 1, 123 N.W. 169; Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Martin, 108 Ky. 11, 55 S.W. 694; Sovereign Camp v. Patton, Tex.Civ.App., 290 S.W. 237; Equitable Life Assurance Society, etc., v. James, 73 Ind. App. 186, 127 N.E. 11; Piersol v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co., 260 Ill. App. 578; Mueller v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 280 Ill. App. 519; Winter v. Supreme Lodge, etc., 96 Mo.App. 1, 69 S.W. 662; Meckert v. Prudential Ins. Co., 114 N.J.L. 320, 176 A. 587; Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Rutledge, 174 Okla. 639, 51 P.2d 521; Gurnacki v. Polish, etc., Union, 113 Pa. Super. 189, 172 A. 480; Grunda v. First Lithuanian Building and Loan Ass'n, 128 Pa. Super. 604, 194 A. 747; Bonnano v. Prudential Ins. Co., R.I., 3 A.2d 249; Tyrrell v. Prudential Ins. Co., 109 Vt. 6, 192 A. 184, 115 A.L.R. 392; Simpson v. Simpson, 162 Va. 621, 175 S.E. 320, 94 A.L.R. 909; Fuller v. New York Life Ins. Co., 3 Cir., 199 F. 897; Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Tilton, 10 Cir., 84 F.2d 10, 14; Petition of Talbot, 250 Mass. 517, 146 N.E. 1; Robb v. Horsey, 169 Md. 227, 181 A. 348; In re Miller's Estate, N.Y.Surr.Ct., 9 N YS. 639; Parker v. New York Life Ins. Co., 142 Miss. 517, 107 So. 198, 44 A.L.R. 1487; Thomas v. Thomas, 16 Neb. 553, 20 N.W. 846; Wentworth v. Wentworth, 71 Me. 72. Here the insured had been missing and not heard from for fourteen years prior to the institution of this action, twice the length of time required by the statute to raise the presumption of death.

  2. The Praetorians v. Phillips

    184 Okla. 521 (Okla. 1939)   Cited 4 times

    Prior to the enactment of article 3, ch. 8, S. L. 1937, we had no statute fixing the time after which a missing person would be presumed to be dead, but the common-law rule of presumptive death applied. This rule is stated in Modern Woodmen of America v. Ghromley, 41 Okla. 532, 139 P. 306, in Modern Woodmen of America v. Michelin, 101 Okla. 217, 225 P. 163; Kansas City Life Ins. Co. v. Bancroft, 169 Okla. 139, 36 P.2d 288; Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Rutledge, 174 Okla. 639, 51 P.2d 521. Other cases might be cited recognizing the rule. The common-law rule in the early cases is stated in Modern Woodmen of America v. Ghromley, supra, as: