*1 1109 v. STATE. COX

No. 14059. Appeals of Texas. of Criminal

Court 26, 1930. Nov. S.W.(2d) also 189.

See 27 McMillan, Stephenville, of and L. Oxford & Wardlaw, Worth, appellant. Fort for

J. of Lloyd Davidson, Atty., Austin, W. State’s of State.

for the

CHRISTIAN, J. murder; punishment, The offense is the years. penitentiary for

confinement in the five a The record is us without statement before exception. question or of of bills No facts presented for

is review. entering judgment pronouncing and sen- In provisions tence, the of the Indeterminate given not effect. The were Sentence Law judgment order are reformed in and sentence may appellant it shown that is con- that be penitentiary in demned to confinement the years. than nor more than five for not less As is affirmed. two reformed, judgment of the trial the court PER CURIAM. opinion foregoing of of the Commission The by judges of Appeals has been examined the Lattner, appel- Paso, El for Isaacks & of Appeals approved of the Court Criminal and lant. by court. the Sydney Penn, Smith and John of W. both Paso, appellee. El for HAWKINS, J., absent.

HIGGINS, J. Villegas by against is Manuel This a suit to by premiums paid appellant recover him policies by on life insurance issued various NAT. INS. AMERICAN CO. v. VILLEGAS. Recovery sought upon appellant. was the No. 2461. governed by theory policies the the that were Mexico, were nullities under the law law of of Appeals of of Texas. Court Civil El Paso. republic, and no risk ever attached. that 15, Nov. 1930. Insurance v. American Nat. Co. Smith See App.) S.W.(2d) 720, (Tex. 13 and Nation Civ. Rehearing 4, 1930. Denied Dec. Insurance al Life & Accident Co. v. Smith (Tex. App.) S.W.(2d) 20 142. Civ. jury Villegas Upon trial without a recov- judgment prayed ered as for. *2 1110 rulings upon finding upon the made The is evidence court’s of fact the The propositions but, appellant, sue stated, in and second of fraud was favor of as first basis of the present issue, pleadings, admis was the in no The evidence the state of the error. Bilger against wholly irrelevant, finding interest. was such would sible as admissions and 408; support judgment appellant’s (Tex. Sup.) War not a 6 S. W. in Buchanan favor. v. (Tex. App.) 182 S. Civ. Reversed and remanded. burton Wilkinson v. Evidence, 681-683. 711; §§ on W. Jones Rehearing. On appellee policies was neither In some of the Appellant judgment insists the should However, beneficiary. he the assured nor the upon be rendered in its issue of favor the degrees varying to such distant was related in beneficiaries or limitation. We think the cause should be persons assured. remanded under the in rule announced Camden man, Yarbrough (Tex. and from unmarried F Plaintiff an ire v. was Insurance Co. App.) 842, ih been interested Com. seems to have S. the evidence 215 W. and there cases thereby parties and of these cited. the welfare them, procure premiums.

prompted for the insurance to rehearing The motion for is overruled. pay and the plaintiff that, had no as It is asserted the lives of some of interest in the insurable persons assured, regarded as a he is to be premiums, paying the and volunteer in mere propo recover. This for that reason cannot why There is no reason sition is overruled. regarded plaintiff a mere should as the volunteer in b.e HOUSTON STAKES v. NORTH SHORE policies procuring insurance life RY. CO. premiums paying for of kin the benefit and No. 2027. people in welfare he was interested whose by protected Appeals and whom he desired to see life insurance contracts. valid of of Civil Texas. Beaumont. Court 20, Nov. 1930. appellant pleaded of the action In bar (Rev. years’ of limitations St. the 1925, statute two 5526). The court’s conclusions art. upon plea overruled the show that this was years’ (Rev. St. that the four statute view 1925, applicable. 5527) The action art. was years’ governed by Gor is the two statute. Daniel, 300, don al. Rhodes & 102 Tex. et v. 40; (Tex. Bomar v. Steele Civ. 116 W. S. 323; Carpenter, App.) Wood v. 101 W. 295 S. 807; 135, 25 L. Ed. Carver v. Moore U. S. 90; (Tex. App.) 275 S. W. Carver v. Civ. App.) 156; (Tex. 288 W. Tu Moore erpe Com. S. (Tex. Co. et al. Civ. al. v. Commission et 649; Bishop-Babcock-Becker App.) S. W. 259 Tennings (Tex. App.) 245 Civ. -S. W. 104. Co. v. This necessitates reversal. error question to the of limitation limitation With reference replies appellee that in brief his against -begin run him to until the did not practiced in connection with his cause fraud Wilson, Monteith, Baring Willett Roberts by ought him or discovered to of action was Wilson, Roberts, & and Elbert all of Hous- in the exercise of rea discovered have been ton, appellant. for diligence by court in was held this

sonable as (Tex. Accident Ins. Co. v. Smith Nat. Life & Kilday, Wm. Streetman and Jas. E. both App.) S.W.(2d) 142. 20 Houston;, appellee. Civ. of for But it is well settled that facts WALKER, J. operation of the of which the statute toll Appellant, pleaded, and, Stakes, owning plead equi- D. if W. limitations must not the be following ed, title to the to wit: facts are irrelevant. See cases cited table such described tract of land, sixty Digest, Appellee (60) p. seq.- strip “A et foot 11 Michie 1371 of has land raising pleading any of in off the East* of Fann the issue fraud side no Tract No. 3 Unit form, pres D, Farm, issue is in and irrelevant the Elena Fruit and Cotton the as record- pleadings. 7, page 49, state of the in Plat Book No. ent ed 48 and of the