El A

838; or where the application contained Pythias v. Stein, 75 Miss. 107, 21 South. 559, 37 L. R. A. 775, 65 Am. St. Rep. 589. In many cases suicide while sane is held to be a defense though there was no provision as to the effect of it if the policy was payable to the insured or his personal representatives; Patterson v. Life Ins. Co., 100 Wis. 118, 75 N. W. 980, 42 L. R. A. 253, 69 Am. St. Rep. 889; Seiler v. Life Ass’n, 105 la. 87, 74 N. W. 911, 43 L. R. A. 537; Hunziker v. Supreme Lodge K. of P., 117 Ivy. 418, 78 S. W. 201; Shipman v. Protected Home Circle, 174 N. Y. 398, 67 N. E. 83, 63 L. R. A. 347; where the policy was payable to the estate of the insured, suicide while sane, was no defense unless expressly so provided; Campbell v. Supreme Conclave Heptasophs, 66 N. J. L. 274, 49 Atl. 550, 54 L. R. A. 576. Where suicide was the defence to an action on an insurance policy, it was not error to charge that “the law does not presume murder; it must be proved;” and, if the' evidence is equal as between murder and suicide, the jury must find for the defendant; Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Egbert, 84 Fed. 411, 28 C. C. A. 281; and in an action on such a policy where the evidence is conflicting and quite evenly balanced as to whether death was caused by the intentional or accidental act of the deceased, it will be presumed that death resulted from accident; Ingersoll v. Knights of Golden Rule, 47 Fed. 272. It has been said that the question is not precisely whether a party is insane or not, but whether he understood the physical nature and consequences of his act, and had sufficient will to make the act voluntary; Nimick v. Life Ins. Co., 10 Am. L. Reg. (N. S.) 101, Fed. Cas. No. 10,266. See Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Akens, 150 U. S. 468, 14 Sup. Ct. 155, 37 L. Ed. 1148; Wharton, Mental Unsoundness; Phill. Ins. The burden of showing a suicide rests with the company; Gooding v. Life Ins. Co., 46 111. App. 307; Whitlatch v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 71 I Inn (N. Y.) 146, 24 N. Y. Supp. 537; Leman v. Life Ins. Co., 46 La. Ann. 1189, 15 South. 388, 24 L. R. A. 589, 49 Am. St. Rep. 34S. In making the proof necessary to establish the liability of an insurer, the plaintiff is entitled to the presumption that a sane man would not commit suicide, as well as of other rules of law established for the guidance of courts and juries in the investigation and determination of facts; Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Akens, 150 U. S. 468, 14 Sup. Ct. 155, 37 L. Ed. 1148; and while proofs of loss, stating suicide as the cause of death, are admissible, they are not conclusive; Leman v. Life Ins. Co., 46 La. Ann. 1189, 15 South. 388, 24 L. R. A. 589, 49 Am. St. Rep. 348; and, where the defence is fraud, suicide may be shown to be the agency by which the fraud was accomplished, although by the policy suicide was no defence; Smith v. N. B. Society, 123 N. Y. 85, 25 N. E. 197, 9 L. R. A. 616. It is more general than “action,” which is almost exclusively applied to law, and denotes any legal proceeding of a civil kind brought by one person against another; Appleton v. Turnbull, 84 Me. 72, 24 Atl. 592; Dullard v. Phelan, 83 la. 471, 50 N. W. 204. It includes actions at law as well as proceedings in equity; Elk Garden Co. v. Thayer Co., 179 Fed. 556. Suit is a generic term, of comprehensive signification, and applies to any proceeding in a court of justice in which the plaintiff pursues, in such court, the remedy which the law affords him for the redress of an injury i or the recovery of a right. Mc Pike v. Mc- Pike, 10 111. App. 333. The word suit in the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 applies to any proceeding in a court of justice in which the plaintiff pursues in such court the remedy which the law affords him. An application for a prohibition is, therefore, a suit; Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. (U. S.) 449, 7 L. Ed. 481. According to the Code of Practice of Loui siana, art 96, a suit is a real, personal, or mixed demand made before a competent judge, by which the parties pray to obtain their rights and a decision of their disputes.

In that acceptation, the words suit, process, and cause are in that state almost synonymous. See Secta; Steph. PI. 427; 3 Bla. Com. 395; 1 Chitty, PI. 399; Bemis v. Faxon, 4 Mass. 263; Burdick v. Green, 18 Johns. (N. Y.) 14; Kolb’s Case, 4 Watts (Pa.) 154; 3 Story, Const. § 1719.

In its most extended sense, the word suit includes not only a civil action, but also a criminal prosecution, as, indictment, information, and a conviction by a magistrate; llamm, N. P. 270. Suit is applied to proceedings in chancery as well as in law; 1 Sm. Ch. Dec. 26; and is, therefore, more general than action, which is almost exclusively applied to matters of law; Didier v. Davison, 10 Paige, Ch. (N. Y.) 516. The witnesses or followers Of the plaintiff. 3 Bla. Com. 295. See Secta. Suit of court, an attendance which a tenant owes to his lord’s court. Cowell. Every copyholder of a manor, in the absence of special custom, formed one of the copyhold “homage” and was bound to attend the customary court on the usual days, upon pain of fine, distress, and forfeiture. Formerly no administrative or even ministerial act affecting the constitution of the manor could be done elsewhere than in the lord’s court. It was the duty of the homage to “present” or take formal notice of any circumstance affecting the manor. Under an act of 1894, a customary court must still be held for recording a consent to a grant of a copyhold tenement out of the waste. Jenks, Modern Land Law 67. Suit covenant, where one has covenanted to do suit and service in his lord’s court. Suithold, a tenure in consideration of certain services to the superior lord. The following one in chase; as, fresh suit A petition to a king, or a great person, or a court.