History
  • No items yet
midpage
Bellis v. Modern Woodmen of America
49 S.W.2d 1059
Mo. Ct. App.
1932
Check Treatment

*1 jurisdiction, only parties and the subject-matter, but it jurisdiction must also have particular render the judgment or particular order case. Otherwise the or order is ab solutely void. v. Tomlinson, 278 Mo. [Ecton In re McNeil, 68 Kan. 366.] A question serious as to arises Whether the act of interpleading does not admit that the property jurisdiction is under the court under writ of attachment, but as we hold the order dissolv- ing the absolutely attachment was void, it is not go into necessary this matter. In view of the interpleader’s statement as to the matter to be by decided holding this and our thereto, reference the judg- ment should be affirmed and it is so ordered. All concur. Ap Ida Bellis, Respondent, v. Modern Woodmen America, pellant. 49 S. W. (2d) 1059. 23, 1932. Randolph Randolph & respondent.

W. L. Cole and Duval Smith appellant. C. This is an action a benefit certificate is- sued the defendant to Millard Bellis, in which plaintiff beneficiary. named Plaintiff recovered for the amount appeals. certificate. Defendant reply Neither is are not assailed. it claimed petition and is insufficient. the answer *2 January died Insured which in the upon, is referred to record certificate sued and The ‘‘ ’’ February 13, 1900. un- insured, was issued The policy,

as old the contract, required pay to an assessment and of was the terms the der pay dues or assessments after month. did not either dues each He June, 1930. assignments error, the

There five of first two of which are are that defendant; (3) court should have directed verdict the the the plaintiff’s 1; giving (4) in instruction No. the court erred court modifying (5) B, in defendant’s instruction and the erred overruling in defendant’s motion for new trial. erred pages 1 instruction No. covers almost three of Plaintiff’s the only criticism of the instruction is that printed record. The there part no which to base that of it which reads: was evidence time, agent said F. said “And that at said Millard Beilis informed representative of that he not or would surrender said pay monthly payments he or policy, but that desired to assess- force, keep policy to said or ments thereon benefit certificate thereupon Beilis representative informed said Millard F. that said monthly premiums accept any more or defendant would not that agent policy, take the mat- said but that said would assessments camp that said Millard up with head of defendant and ter from defendant.” further communications Beilis would receive of the de- representatives was that evidence The uncontradicted exchange him to sought to induce insured and called on the fendant one; surrender the to that insured declined old for a new policy “they pay wanted willing whatever he saying that was policy, old replied that representatives said which one of policy,” on the old of one informed policy good;” that insured “was no was the old premiums any they receive “would not that representatives said policy.” the old assigned. reason for the Clearly is not erroneous the instruction policy his old that to insured representatives said The defendant’s re- would not be thereon payments good” no and that “was or tender pay thereafter required to The insured ceived. was Life Ins. Hancock Mutual John v. or assessments. dues [Newman Co., 148 Indemnity Life Wayland v. Western Co., W. 199 S. Trainmen, Railroad of Brotherhood 626; Murphy v. S. W. 730.] of error the trial court convict we will not Having that determined case, whole 1, which covers the No. plaintiff’s instruction giving

30 necessarily 2 1 assignments error Nos. are

it follows denied. upon in de- 5

Assignments Nos. are not elaborated of error [Kiger Sanko, v. noticed. will therefore not be fendant’s brief and Boyer, G., con- (2d) 218, is affirmed. W. S. 222.] curs. foregoing opinion of is C.,

PER CURIAM: The Campbell, All is affirmed. the court. The adopted opinion concur. Joyner Error, v. Baker, Defendant

Estella *3 Liability Company In Accident Zurich General (2d) in Error. 1060. Company, Plaintiffs surance 23, Paul W. Barnett Chalender’, Farrington <& L. Curtis Charles defendants error. plaintiff in Shughart & error. Johnson Compensation Workmen’s Commission C. The Joyner Baker, in favor of Estella 1930, an award made January 16, Company against and Zurich error, and Liability Company, plaintiffs in error. Insurance Accident & General to the circuit court appealed from the award in error plaintiffs hearing county. appeal the award of the Hpon Jackson Plaintiffs in error affirmed. was, September 10, commission error, writ of have reviewed seek to now commission. the award affirming circuit unnecessary. statement case, we take of view In the

Case Details

Case Name: Bellis v. Modern Woodmen of America
Court Name: Missouri Court of Appeals
Date Published: May 23, 1932
Citation: 49 S.W.2d 1059
Court Abbreviation: Mo. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.