dition that he could not exercise his reasoning faculties on the act which he was about to do, the company is liable.”
Other extracts from the instruction are as follows:
“T instruct you further, gentlemen, in connection with this matter, that the only defense that the defendant has interposed to the demand of the plaintiff is that the death of Mr. Bodman, while admitted, was not accidental, but was self-inflicted, and was what is ordinarily termed suicide. In this connection, you are instructed that, if you find that the deceased, Tred J. Bodman, did place himself upon the rail where the wheels of the train were about to pass, you must determine whether or not he was insane or sane at the time. If you do find that he placed himself in the way of the train and he was a sane man at that time, then the death was not accidental, and under those circumstances your verdict should be for the defendant. If, however, you find that he did place himself in the way of the train, but he was at that time insane, and that his act was the mad act of a man bereft of his reason, then the death was an accident, and you should find for the plaintiff and against the defendant.
“In other words, self-destruction of a sane man knowingly and deliberately making way with himself is not an accident, but the self-destruction of a man whose mind is deranged and whose reason is gone, when the self-destruction results from such insanity, is accidental.
“T instruct you further, gentlemen, that it is not every kind or degree of insanity which will so far excuse the party taking his own life as to make the company insuring him liable. To do that the act of self- destruction must have been caused by insanity, and the mind of the deceased must have been so far deranged as to make him incapable of using rational judgment in regard to the act which he was committing.”
The instruction is too lengthy to set out in full, but sufficient has been above set forth to demonstrate that it was quite comprehensive. We think, as a whole, it fully and fairly states the law applicable to the issues involved in the case. It is therefore clear to our minds that there was no reversible error in giving the instruction, nor was there reversible error in refusing to give the instruction requested by the defendant, the contents of which is as follows:
“The jury are instructed that by the terms of the insurance contract upon which this action is based, and which is in evidence before you, it is provided, among other things, that the defendant insurance company does not assume any liability for death resulting from accident occasioned by
