
    Grand Lodge Colored Knights of Pythias v. Hill et al.
    [70 South. 347.]
    1. Parties. Trial. Amendment. Lost instrument. Sufficiency of evidence.
    
    Where the administrator of the estate of a deceased brought suit upon a life insurance policy and it was subsequently discovered that the policy was payable to the wife and children of deceased, an amendment substituting them as plaintiffs should he allowed..
    2. Lost Instrument. Sufficiency of evidence.
    
    In a suit upon a lost life insurance policy, where its loss and contents were sought to he proven alone by a witness who had no personal knowledge that the policy had ever been issued, or that it had ever been lost or what it contained, a peremptory instruction for the plaintiff should not have been given.
    Appeal from the circuit court of Rankin county.
    Hon. C. L. Dobbs, Judge.
    Suit by Charity Hill and others against the Grand Lodge of the Colored Knights of Pythias. Prom a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    A declaration was filed in the circuit court by one Robinson, administrator of the estate of Willis Hill, deceased, against the appellant for the recovery of a life insurance policy held by deceased in the appellant order. It was discovered afterwards that the policy of insurance was made payable to the wife and children of the deceased and on the day the case was called for trial a petition for leave to amend the declaration by substituting the names, ■of his wife and children was filed and leave to amend granted. It was alleged that the policy of insurance was. lost and a witness, Tobe Turner, the chancellor of the local lodge in which the deceased held his’ membership, was introduced for the purpose of proving the loss of the policy. Witness Turner in his testimony stated that a policy had been issued some years before to Willis Hill and surrendered, and that application for a new policy had been made and the fee paid through him. He says he has never seen the new policy, however, but is positive that one was issued, and that it called for six hundred dollars. It was evident from his testimony that he had no personal knowledge that the policy had ever been issued, or that it had ever been lost, or its contents. On the trial the appellant offered in evidence the constitution and by-laws of the order, but the court declined to permit their introduction. The court then gave a peremptory instruction, to find for plaintiffs, and the defendant appeals.
    
      Latham & Latham, for appellants.
    
      Stingily & McIntyre, for appellees.
   Smith, C. J'.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The court below committed no error in permitting the amended declaration to be filed, but should not have granted the peremptory instruction. The policy sued on was not introduced in evidence. Its loss , and its contents were sought to be proven by the evidence of the witness Tobe Turner, but it is manifest from his testimony that he was without knowledge of either of these matters. We cannot tell from the record whether the •court below erred in excluding appellant’s constitution and by-laws from the evidence for the reason that it does not appear what these documents would have disclosed or what light they would have thrown upon the question at issue.

Reversed and remanded.  