defendant has appealed to this court from the judgment and from the order denying a new trial. While the defendant specified, in the language of the statute, as grounds for a new trial, that the verdict was contrary to the evidence and contrary to the court’s instructions, these grounds were apparently abandoned, and the only question presented on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in giving and in refusing to give certain instructions. The instructions given and refused upon which error is predicated relate to the question whether the deceased was sane or insane at the time of his death. ‘ The trial court instructed the jury thus:
“If you find that he was impelled to the act of self-destruction by an insane impulse which the reason that was left in him did not enable him to resist, or if his reasoning powers were so far overcome by his mental condition that he could not exercise his reasoning faculties on the act which he was about to do, the company is liable.”
The defendant requested that the jury be instructed that by the terms of the insurance contract—
“The defendant insurance company does not assume any liability for death resulting from accident occasioned by mental infirmity or insanity, * * * and that therefore in this case, if you should find that the deceased, Fred Bodman, came to his death by his own act of self-destruction, even if you should also find that his act in taking his own life was due to disease or mental or bodily infirmity or insanity or fits, yet there could be no recovery in this case by the plaintiff, and that because of the terms of the insurance contract.”
The trial court refused to give this instruction.
It will be noted that the requested instruction refers to, and purports to be based upon, certain provisions of the insurance contract involved in this suit. The defendant does not challenge the correctness of the rule announced in the instruction given by the trial court, considered as an abstract proposition. On the contrary, it admits on this appeal that the authorities sustain the rule that death from suicide is caused by accidental means within the meaning of a policy of insurance against bodily injuries from “external, violent, and accidental means,” if the insured was at the time of the act so insane that he did not understand the nature of the act or that death would result therefrom. But appellant contends that this rule is not applicable in this case for the reason that the policy here involved contained a provision that “the accident department of the asso-
