26 V — — FEDERAL REPORTER.
» Cnomcmrn v. Acornmir Iris. Co. on Noam AMERICA. _
I -» , i (Oircuit Court, D. Colorado. May 16, 1888.) ,
Ixsrmsironé- Connrrrons or Pomcr —·4PAYMEN'I‘ or Pammmrs- Dmroaum ov.
ssuamn. I ·
C. procured an accident insurance policy, the general agent giving him un--
-til·Novem2er lstfollowingto pay. the premium. On that day, in company
with T., w ,_o was a soliciting agent for the companly, and who ad conducted
the negotiations with C., and was authorized to col ect the premium, C. went
to the rgenernl,agent’s omoe to make the payment, but was informed biy the
erson who had acted as general agent at the time the policy was issue that
V he wasno longer such agent, and that his successor was absent. Thereupon
C. and T. went out, and the latter promised C. that he would return in the
, afternoon,_and’wou1d pay the amount of the premiumout of his own pocket,
and lookgto C. for it. He didcall at the oillce two or three times during the
afternoon, but was unable to ind the general agent, and the premium was not
paid. . Held, in`an’action~ on the policy, that . had not exercised sumcient.
diligence to avoid a forfeiture for non—payment. . ; ·
At Law. .‘-On motion to direct verdict. A A
This was an action on a policy of accident insurance, brought by
Phoebe C- Cronkhite against the Accident Insurance Company of North
America. A V
Markltamdc Dillonand E. A. Clark, for plaintiff.
Patterson dc Thomas, for defendant. V .
BREWER, C. J. In reference to this case I have cometo the conclusion
that the motion to instruct the jury to End in favor of the defendant
should be sustained, and there is no need of an argument upon the facts
to the jury. The facts are these;iIsimp1y state the facts in reference.
to onequestionwithout any extended comment: Mr. Cronkhite, the
insured, whose policy was dated the 3d of October, on the 6th of that
month fell into an excavation, and received a bruise, from which time
his health began to fail. He was partially disabled for some days, and
thenseemed to be better. Afterwards, and on the 5th day of November,.
he wastaken down with pneumonia, and died on the 13th of that month.
The contention on the one side is that, while pneumonia may have been
the proximate cause, yet the bruise was the primary, and, though remote, ·
the sole, cause of the death, in that that bruise created and produced the
pneumonia,ca1led "Traumatic Pneumonia," from its origin,which resulted
in death. Now, that is a question of fact which I do not attempt to pass
upon, but should leave to the jury whether the bruise was the sole cause
of the death within the purview of the policy. Of course, if pneumonia
is a germ disease, it was not the sole cause, for a blow does not develop
or create germs. It may expose the person, by weakening the system,
to their more potent action, but that is all. Doctors disagree, and I V
shall not pretend to determine the fact. The other is the question that
I shall consider.
The policy was issued upon the 3d of October, but no money was
then paid. In fact, none was ever paid to the general agents, Porter,