Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York v. Hillmon
145 U.S. 285 (1892)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Out-of-court statements that express the declarant's then-existing intent to perform an act in the future are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule to prove that the declarant subsequently acted in accordance with that intent.
Facts:
- Sallie Hillmon was the beneficiary of three life insurance policies on her husband, John W. Hillmon.
- John W. Hillmon left Wichita, Kansas around March 5, 1879, with a man named Brown, purportedly to search for a site for a cattle ranch.
- On the night of March 18, 1879, a body with a gunshot wound was discovered at a campsite at Crooked Creek.
- Sallie Hillmon claimed the body was that of her husband and sought payment under the insurance policies.
- The insurance companies contended the body was that of another man, Frederick Adolph Walters.
- Prior to his disappearance, Walters had written letters to his family and fiancée from Wichita, Kansas.
- In these letters, dated early March 1879, Walters stated his intention to leave Wichita and travel to Crooked Creek with Hillmon.
- Walters was not seen or heard from after the letters were sent.
Procedural Posture:
- Sallie Hillmon filed three separate lawsuits against three different insurance companies in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Kansas to recover life insurance proceeds.
- The insurance companies (defendants) moved to have the three cases consolidated for a single trial, which the Circuit Court granted.
- During jury selection, the court ruled that the three defendants were to be treated as a single party, entitling them to only three peremptory challenges in total.
- At trial, the defendants sought to introduce letters written by Frederick Walters as evidence, but the court excluded them as inadmissible.
- The jury returned verdicts in favor of the plaintiff, Sallie Hillmon, in all three cases.
- The defendant insurance companies appealed the judgments to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are a person's out-of-court written statements, expressing an intention to travel to a specific place with another named person, admissible as evidence to make it more probable that they did so?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Gray
Yes. A person's out-of-court statements expressing their then-existing intention to perform a future act are admissible as evidence to show that the act was likely carried out. The letters written by Walters were competent evidence of his intention to travel with Hillmon to Crooked Creek. The existence of this intention is a material fact which makes it more probable that Walters did, in fact, go to Crooked Creek with Hillmon. The court reasoned that a declaration of intention is direct evidence of a person's state of mind, which can be crucial in a chain of circumstantial evidence. Quoting Insurance Co. v. Mosley, the court affirmed that expressions of bodily or mental feelings are original and competent evidence. The court also held that the trial court erred by improperly consolidating the defendants for the purpose of peremptory challenges, as combining separate actions for trial cannot deprive each defendant of their statutory right to their own set of challenges.
Analysis:
This case is foundational in American evidence law, establishing what is now known as the 'Hillmon doctrine' or the 'state of mind' exception to the hearsay rule, which is codified in Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3). The decision allows a declarant's statement of intent to be used as circumstantial evidence that they later acted in conformity with that intent. Its most significant and sometimes controversial extension is allowing the statement to also prove the subsequent conduct of a third person mentioned in the declaration (i.e., Walters's statement can be used to prove Hillmon went with him). This principle significantly impacts how circumstantial evidence is used in both civil and criminal cases where a person's actions and whereabouts are at issue.
Unlock the full brief for Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York v. Hillmon