Opinion of the Court. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court. There is no escape from the conclusion that, under the issue presented by the general denial in the answer, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to show, from all the evidence, that the death of the insured was the result, not only of external and violent, but of accidental means. The policy provides that the insurance shall not extend to any case of death or personal injury, unless the claimant under the policy establishes, by direct and positive proof, that such death or personal injury was caused by external violence and accidental means. Such being the contract, the court must give effect to its provisions according to the fair meaning of the words used, leaning, however, where the words do not clearly indicate the intention of the parties, to that interpretation which is most favorable to the insured. National Bank v. Ins. Co., 95 U. S. 673; Western Ins. Co. v. Cropper, 32 Penn. St. 351, 355; Reynolds v. Commerce Fire Ins. Co., 47 N. Y. 597, 604; Anderson v. Fitzgerald, 4 H. L. Cas. 484, 498, 507; Fowkes v. Manchester &c. Life Assurance Ass'n, 3 B. & S. 917, 925. The requirement, however, of direct and positive proof, as to certain matters, did not make it necessary to establish the fact and attendant circumstances of death by persons who were actually present when the insured received the injuries which caused his death. The two principal facts to be established were external violence and accidental means, producing death. The first was established when it appeared that death ensued from a pistol shot through the heart of the insured. The evidence on that point was direct and positive; as much so, within the meaning of the policy, as if it had come from one who saw the pistol fired; and the proof, on this point, is none the less direct and positive, because supplemented or strengthened by evidence of a circumstantial character. Were the means by which the insured came to his death also accidental? If he committed suicide, then the law was for the company, because the policy by its terms did not extend to or cover self-destruction, whether the insured was Opinion of the Court. at the time sane or insane. In respect to the issue as to suicide, the court instructed the jury that self-destruction was not to be presumed. In Mallory v. Travellers' Ins. Co., 47 N. Y. 52, 54, which was a suit upon an accident policy, it appeared that the death was caused either by accidental injury or by the suicidal act of the deceased. "But," the court properly said, "the presumption is against the latter. It is contrary to the general conduct of mankind; it shows gross moral turpitude in a sane person." Did the court err in saying to the jury that, upon the issue as to suicide, the law was for the plaintiff, unless that presumption was overcome by competent evidence? This question must be answered in the negative. The condition that direct and positive proof must be made of death having been caused by external, violent, and accidental means, did not deprive the plaintiff, when making such proof, of the benefit of the rules of law established for the guidance of courts and juries in the investigation and determination of facts. Upon like grounds, we sustain the ruling to the effect that the jury should not presume, from the mere fact of death, that the insured was murdered. The facts were all before the jury as to the movements of the insured on the evening of his death, and as to the condition of his body and clothes when he was found dead, at a late hour of the night, upon the floor of his office. While it was not to be presumed, as a matter of law, that the deceased took his own life, or that he was murdered, the jury were at liberty to draw such inferences in respect to the cause of death as, under the settled rules of evidence, the facts and circumstances justified. We are, however, of opinion that the instructions to the jury were radically wrong in one particular. The policy expressly provides that no claim shall be made under it where the death of the insured was caused by "intentional injuries, inflicted by the insured or any other person." If he was murdered, then his death was caused by intentional injuries inflicted by another person. Nevertheless, the instructions to the jury were so worded as to convey the idea that if the insured was murdered, the plaintiff was entitled to recover; in other Opinion of the Court. words, even if death was caused wholly by intentional injuries inflicted upon the insured by another person, the means used were "accidental" as to him, and therefore the company was liable. This was error. Upon the whole case, the court is of opinion that, by the terms of the contract, the burden of proof was upon the plaintiff, under the limitations we have stated, to show, from all the evidence, that the death of the insured was caused by external violence and accidental means; also, that no valid claim can be made under the policy, if the insured, either intentionally or when insane, inflicted upon himself the injuries which caused his death, or if his death was caused by intentional injuries inflicted upon him by some other person. The judgment is accordingly reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to grant a new trial and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. NICKERSON v. NICKERSON. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 881. Submitted January 6, 1888. Decided May 14, 1888. On the proof in this case the court holds that the plaintiff has failed to show such an agreement as can be made the basis of a decree in her behalf. IN EQUITY. Decree dismissing the bill. Complainant ap pealed. The case is stated in the opinion. Mr. J. J. Johnson and Mr. W. W. Wilshire for appellant. Mr. Henry Wise Garnett and Mr. Conway Robinson, Jr., for appellants Carter and Matthews. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court. ! Opinion of the Court. The substantial relief which the appellant, who was the plaintiff below, seeks in this suit is a decree (1) declaring void a conveyance executed May 31, 1883, by William B. Matthews, trustee, to the appellee, Lena D. Carter, by the name of Lena D. Nickerson, of lot two, in square one hundred and fourteen, in the city of Washington; (2) establishing, in behalf of the plaintiff, certain trusts in respect to said real estate; (3) and requiring Matthews and said Lena to convey the same to the plaintiff, or to trustees for the benefit of herself and the child of her marriage with the defendant, Azor H. Nickerson. Her bill asking such relief was dismissed with costs. The case made by the bill is as follows: The plaintiff, while on a visit to Portland, Oregon, in the year 1870, engaged herself to be married to the defendant Nickerson, then on duty in that city as an officer of the army of the United States. Prior to such engagement, he pointed out to her blocks 145 and 146 in Couch's Addition to Portland as his property, and "promised and agreed" that after marriage he would convey them to her as a marriage portion or settlement for the benefit of herself and any children of their marriage, and erect thereon a dwelling house for their use; or, if she so elected, they would sell the blocks and invest the proceeds in other property in Portland, to be held upon like trusts, and, after having advanced in value, sold and the proceeds applied exclusively to the purchase of a house for the plaintiff and her children. The plaintiff's mother, who resided in San Francisco, having been informed of this engagement, objected to the marriage upon the gound that the defendant was an officer of the army, without settled place of abode, or other means of support than his pay as such officer. But her objections, the bill states, were overcome by the defendant's verbal assurance to her to the following effect: That the question of support had been considered by the plaintiff and himself; that he was the owner of certain blocks of ground in the city of Portland, and that he had promised and agreed with the plaintiff that if she would marry him, he would, immediately after marriage, convey them to the complainant as a marriage settlement, or would Opinion of the Court. hold them as trustee for her separate benefit, and if at any time sold, the proceeds should be invested in other property, to be held in like manner for the sole and separate benefit of the plaintiff and her children. Upon the strength of these promises and representations, and relying upon the good faith of the respondent Nickerson, and in consideration thereof, and for no other reason or consideration whatever, the plaintiff's mother, it is alleged, withdrew her objection, and consented to the marriage, which occurred on the 13th day of August, 1870. Without her mother's consent, the plaintiff avers, the marriage would not have taken place. It is also alleged that the plaintiff, relying upon the love and affection of her husband; having confidence that he would, in good faith, keep and perform his agreement; and preferring that the property should be managed by him, without the complications necessarily arising from the interposition of third parties, did not require the lots to be conveyed to trustees for her benefit, but permitted the title to remain in the defendant, "subject to her equitable interests under said agreement." About a month after the marriage the plaintiff and the defendant united in selling said blocks of ground, the proceeds being invested jointly with one John S. Walker in certain lots in Portland. Walker having died, a division of these lots was effected by judicial proceedings, which were concluded in 1878. In respect to the lots assigned in this division to the defendant, the bill alleges that they were held by him- although there were no writings between them on the subject" for the sole and separate benefit of the complainant," and "as her trustee under the agreement, promise and consideration" herein before stated. While the plaintiff was temporarily residing in Europe, under circumstances to be presently stated, the defendant sold the lots last described and transmitted deeds therefor to be executed by her. The bill states that, not doubting the affection of her husband or his good faith in keeping his agreement, and perceiving from the consideration mentioned in the deeds ($12,000) that the lots had sufficiently increased in value |