Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Cook

OE RAILROAD TRAINMEN v. COOK BROTHERHOOD S.W.) (221 awarding guardianship. Our to her such taken OF is clusion that contention well RAILROAD TRAIN- 1638.) (No. MEN v. COOK. ren- should be here such stated, no con- has been dered. As (Court of Civil of Texas. Amarillo. guard- appellant’s application for the of test Merits, April 7, Jan. 1920. On the 1920. children, ianship her Rehearing of the of May estates 5, 1920.) Denied legal competent rais- was offered or -Voluntaryunincorporat- 1. Associations <§c=31— good of character as issue regarded person ed association not or en- .tending pellant, not that she was or to show tity in absence of statute. guardian, appointed proper person or legislation, In the absence of disqual- statutory ground of to show that unincorporated the associations not appellant’s con- in existed. The ification person entity, law as and where such feeling as of and such duct and tone voice engage enterprise, in business undergoing liability manifested she while members to third partners, rigid searching similar to the able cross-examination of and enforce- the the in the same manner probative as the lia- force were of insufficient court bility. the refusal her to warrant testimony guardianship. in- Unincorporated of witnesses 2. Associations associa- <®=oI— entity appellant . tion in view of in- statute. who had been troduced timately 6149-6154, her Rev. St. arts. associated with held to constitute unincorporated entity, good repute, association an at least a woman she was litigation. purpose good qual- habits, business economical surviving parent Appeal <®=s>387(3)— ifications. She is the and error Association manage headquarters county required seeks out of minors whose estates she not specified, appel- to file being bond within time guardian, minors, and each of said county. lant resides within requested years age, in court over guardian association not writing appoint es- her headquarters county its was not in which it was sued competent testimony was no tates. There required file bond within 20 disqualified by showing appellant days 2084, requiring after notice of under Rev. St. art. mentioned article 4078 reason matters Vernon’s appel- be so filed when Statutes, Sayles’ Civil and as the county, lant since such associa- especi- minors, surviving parent of the entity 6149-6154, tion is an view articles such, ally she since had selected her place and as such has its residence at the guardian appointed their was entitled headquarters governing offi- Arlitt, body. In I-Ieinemier estates. cers that, the court On the Merits. person designated by when having statute as @=»762 4. Insurance held effective —Insurance guardianship prior delivery without of certificate. disqualified by matters mentioned Where for readmission and for statute, person is entitled to be accepted by society, insurance were fraternal appointed although guardian, the court and where as a member opinion that some other entitling him to issuance beneficiary certificate, fill the The court said: better. the insurance went into effect the that his admission Legislature its make month, notwithstanding dues the current mandatory upon courts, laws well itself had certificate issued others; reasonably and, it is certain that when delivered, anything absence the con- purpose Legislature, was the it is application for stitution or duty charged with of the courts and others delivery insurance a certificate statutory law to execute the enforcement the insurance, condition to the legislative although purpose, since insurance contract hardships may citing stances Black- result”— writing. inbe Estate, 482, 49 v. Blackwood’s wood S. W. 1045. 5.-Insurance <®=o762—Local officers agents reception - and read mission of members. follows from what we have said grand lodge order which’the and its opinion, our the district court erred controlling body officers are the acts granting appellant’s application. It is there- lodge and its officers in the matter of the fore ordered that the of the district members; and readmission of re-, reversed, court be this cause be agents court, manded to the distinct with instruc- in such matters. judgment appointing tions enter Principal (I) Agent may 101 — guardian minors, estates J. C. waive strict ing in deal- with contract Lucy McLaren, McLaren and who has no certify court action to power. for observance. Generally agent may com- respect Reversed and remanded. of the terms a contract in other oases see same in all KEY-NUMBER Indexes <S=»For SOUTHWESTERN n 9. 7. Insurance 8. to those matters in which mitted to the bership, the circumstances non’s even had no fact essary ship officers vision principal, knowledge plaintiff, and defendant structions now self Dallas hood motion are: The W. E. untary hood ant covered Railroad cause the time elected as such extensive States, subordinate site entitled may accept BOYCE, Wm. Appeal Action M. The facts Insurance such Where Applicant Since construction proceeding is to moves though of Railroad of Railroad Trainmen. M. Sayles’ subordinate Whitehurst, H. prosecuted and affords its members insurance nor a association of did constitution; proceedings inducting required by law. applicant constitution subordinate Trainmen, by A. E. Cook to from District Plowman, provided Atwell, J. The On Motion his failure to thereof @=762 Applicant @=762 Applicant rely large @=763 Applicant’s required medical to what Ann. Civ. St. recovering construction preclude he fraternal on and in being waived, in readmission gaining Trainmen, recognized as a — — bond was for him into — appellant, readmitting as a of such has a in the district court of Judge. under appellee, for readmission had regularity readmission to Dismiss. throughout Dallas, subordinate appeal. appeals. Dallas, trainmen thereof was him from prerequisite waived. dependent he is of his appellant, whose an requirement the order requirement, subordinate be dismissed decision of this intermediate examination, A. could he submits Brotherhood of ambiguous for Dallas for readmission constitution him. party Judgment acting the Brother- E. view of Ver- said defend- member filed within Affirmed. require direction proceedings. membership to member- rely becoming arts. to the United appellant. where rely Cook, prerequi- appellee. Brother- County; be done for thereof for on him- such nec- sub- vol- New had and and be- he within county.” tinue davit in days taking 31 S. W. quires place, features of supra, ant engage 20 and less Benefit Association Rapids Turn-Verein, Publishing Society, Industrial of this absence of located at manner association fact; Association, of the members ciation is transacted associations erhood located at consists of a nate lodge. sesssion for appeal appeal. could, C. J. and a of the motion dent, secretary, court at which Article 2084 can be said similar Rep. headquarters grand after did Liederkranz case vol. York, the term the court more lodges What, corporation, respects and the corporation. according bond was as to thirty days if It is after N. E. 922. lieu thereof character Furniture in business as a accidents, at 5, p. 91; notice of that— legislation, than law appeal Lumber Cleveland, lodge in the case of Ostrom than then, provided were partnership subordinate Slaughter more than to have a residence? Ostrom v. partnership Tex. Civ. of the Revised Statutes- this character eight weeks, are chartered filed partieuar filing Pa. Singing entity. Co., 10 Tex. Civ. says: thereof liability appeal v. shall Dallas, days new Co. law, enterprises, where is be enforced etc. The Where such is neither a Wester, by appellant strictly partnerships applying some of between he resides out of the the statement Ohio. of an business of voluntary their offices be filed within regarded by status v. grand Court after the trial and " liability. Society Pennsylvania Greene, Burton like etc. The Texas American which had term, continue that a given, law to them. bymay 8 weeks. constitution the bond Atl. appeal The officers as a matter third partners, lodge such such officers. corporations. occupies organization 226; residence, v. Germania associations partnership county, if the the defend association Pine overruling more than 161 N. voluntary v. App. 270, notice But such law rendered liability subordi- at such shall be term Greene, Baptist 43 Am. that a or affi- twenty In Broth- Grand Home grand presi- Land asso- , The law re- Y. if <gz=sFor other cases see same and Indexes KEY-NUMBER in all RAILROAD OF TRAINMEN COOK (221 3.W.) pass upon rights powers, in; “In order to that while an ac- so insured he suffered members, as of law well as those of its ‘both the resulting cident loss of an arm corporations copartnerships the law of $1,600 was entitled to recover the sum of are to be resorted in the absence of stat- urged his contract of insurance. The defense utory regulations; the determined choice by the was cer- that uo by the nature of the under considera- feature by ” plaintiff, tificate had been issued it to the tion.’ and that he had not oi the become member order at the time of the accident so as to In that it the ease was intimated that him entitle membership; to the benefits incident to its to be sue and' sued in the name of the constitution of the president, New the statute of conferred required seeking one admission associations,’ “may York a be of to prerequisite the constitution as to corporate nature.” -not had done membership, Legislature a law enacted appellee’s reply this. The to this contention provides 6149-6154) that—(cid:127) S. arts. which <R. was was if the “may sue necessary, this condition been waiv- had having juris- be sued in court of this state appellant. A more detailed state- subject-matter diction of the its present ment of the facts which the basis distinguishingname; it nec- shall-not be respective -parties claims of the essary to make the individual stockholders or necessary for a further consideration of the parties members thereof to the suit.” questions presented. thus appellee had a member of the provisions [2] The law contains Beaumont which it to us to refer expelled nonpayment was of dues. When in this discussion. We think the effect of this Dallas, he to work went as a trainman at he was, purposes least law litigation, at application made for admission to the Broth- to constitute the association erhood the subordinate at Dal- entity. Judge Brown, in case of Frank v. readmission, signed, las. To effect such he Tatum, after under the direction of the treasurer referring several states statutes of Lodge, application Dallas and also for readmission brought by or which authorize suits to be application for a cer- names, against copartnerships firm in their application tificate of insurance. The mission to vision: for ad- says: contained this give statutes recognition entity ‘an dis- admitted, promise I ” legal person, tinct distinct from members.’ its laws, rules, regulations with Brotherhood.” all the purposes [3] If the suit, entity, 'the is to be as an so Appellee also submitted to the by name, it be sued then paid physician’s medical examination and contemplated that it should have a residence $1, paid fee of and also what is termed the reference somewhere. The law in “proposition $1, fee” of which was appeal bond, quoted, which makes upon presenting we for readmis- provision only for a defendant who either applica- .Brotherhood. These sion into the it'; suit or out secretary of the to the tions were delivered to appeal Dallas and sent at Cleveland, a residence. defendant without Under secretary of at we think that the of Ohio, approved, circumstances residence approval; whereupon, the association determined like that duly notified of such corporation. August, day this event residence the local 23d place would be at the head for member- voted quarters governing body— ship, appellee was elected member. Cleveland, regularity question in this instance Ohio. There is no of proceedings up point. in our These result conclusions to this time, appellee within was filed first When notified elec- tion, money pay should that the motion dismiss then have the he did not required upon admission, but in- overruled. the dues pay treasurer that he would formed On the Merits. beginning dues with offered to as to become a so following general September September make statement 1st. On 1st he case, preliminary pay in addition the dues treasurer of the opinion lodge, accepted, heretofore statement local because the treasurer but were not then disposing rendered, busy motion to dismiss was too attend appeal. recovery matter, Sunday, September 2d, Plaintiff’s the on the appellant organization founded but to the appellee claim he was member of did to the local $4.75, and-was insured there- sum of which was the amount that 221 SOUTHWESTERN (cid:127)the order ber o£ the parade. him to a selected and his pellee room, day pellee the he do him to pellee’s pellee informed him of such fact readmitted the back stitution the quirements lodge, requesting the issuance of a self understand rant local dated 3d grand ber bad he had been admission, tive. pellee cers as that in whom all of due grand stated that certificate to cordance with his because the legál holiday it, and grand duties, reported him to receive before. secretary member $1,600 if his insurance had that the remittance application. The treasurer loss of his lodge by took secretary. On the reported by Brotherhood, wearing and forth between the the treasurer, did not know that correspondence, be due and so. On is some other September did not had not secretary appellee, met with readmission receipt included Tire money grand lodge by warranted the accident to was a only requested, finding September supplied lodge for such In carrying money remittance of on the readmission of the informed of the accident. After the ways intervention of the transactions purpose of designated some fact, at the become membership, from been made on that the arm, for such while in the order for connection, however, membership, signed that requirement the grand the payable 3d, the this prevented the evidence secretary accordance with the Brotherhood the and which would entitle local parade evidence which 4th the local the the did accident a member thereof. informed charges during had been' the lodge again report the A. F. in the Labor finding that it was night was welcomed the readmission of for $4.25 made -report taking part, month, constitution. had, lodge $4.25, room on or local the discharge secretary grand secretary treasurer, to readmission. Sunday suggested looking the course which caused $4.25 the treasurer against such come a member of become effec- Cook, out a gave a on file at order insignia would the lodge. Ap- member of beneficiary sion remittance of dues forwarded September was sent treasurer morning, returned such re- thé present, the sum his due he stat- the showed the re- no one report, and a before asked grand class next war- him- Day into offi- ap- ap- ap- for his ac- provisions. pellant’s liability: constitution are claimed the consideration time of signed without such insurance or member to whom in lodge cer or member of a subordinate ability grand time of his death or total and lodge, the general secretary him in herein be mentioned.” shall subordinate be ficiary certificates heretofore issued in like the secretary itiated and manner and to the same tion tary'of to the if In such case ber shall be treated the after issued.” delivery provided in section the rights deposit bership * ment of all cation on form tary fee persons ment nor be considered erhood until he readmission ‘Approved,’ and pulsion, “Sec. “Sec. 79. The constitution and “Sec. 122. “Sec. “Sec. 151. member “Sec. found good standing dispensed support the same.” * » absolutely applied president name, benefits of upon signing subordinate for card, shall forward the be taken ever There does unless one dollar. adopted occurred. shall must current good standing This to be the accident because treasurer and treasurer for that act to and lodge arrearage In No A A withdrawal with.” liable nor authority any date from the time he so specially No void. lodge, again sign insurance or beneficiary department, (cid:127) correct, proposition signed touching all matters has lodges readmitted return the same to month’s dues secretary claim shall beneficiary the certificate provided or the members thereof shall And to be govern of'the * ceremony and treasurer every insurance that makes the constitution, * * up authorized he shall expelled any nor the officers thereof considering modify or appellee shall not render shall become mem- deposit grand register said matters duly shall constitution, agreeing organization and control as of this constitution. question section thereof for and all actions which agents All failure of beneficiary depart- pertaining purpose, constitution.” readmission card certificate readmission card required by admitted and on file. the receive permanent stamp date initiation shall application, or the lodge had and mem- of the Broth- general purpose, pertinent grand nonpayment those here- acquire any unless rule proposition issued was readmitted writing the anything all bene- readmis- any the card attaches applica-. general neither * * ^[*] at at the secre- secre- above grand applir rules keep shall pay- con and, offi- dis- the the be- ex- ' RAILROAD OE TRAINMEN v. COOK ¡.W.) (221 I Ct.) (Mun. witz v. Grand N. Y. insurance. dition Supp. 837. not re kind Insurance contracts [5, writing. applications 6] quired The order which the If controlling body and through .acts its officers for insurance were ac for readmission and cepted, the local a mem and- did become ber, the matter entitle Necessarily of members. is certificate him sued, to have agents its in officers are went into the* Brotherhood general then we think the insurance these and it is the rule his admission and effect dues for notwithstanding agent may month, of law that an com strict the current respect not been of a contract in itself had terms certificate acting tov. those matters in which Modern Woodmen he is issued or delivered. 862; principal, course, Owens, Pledger App. provided, of S. W. the other Civ. has power limitation of Civ. in such matter. 78 of the Mutual Fire Section State quoted Taylor, express Austin Fire constitution above is the of the subordinate Co. agency Brown, 973; Pa limitation lodge Insurance Co. v. S. W. Shaffer, attention; Insurance Co. v. and its officers called our cific Mutual App., 313, v. but Cohen itself 325, Co., in does act matter Continental Eire Insurance of the induction of the Tayloe 296, 24; Rep. 60 v. 390, members into con 3 W. Mer and section 78 S. Am. express Co., tains no Fire Insurance How. 13 their au chants’ 9 thority may 187; Ed. in such L. Life Benefit be answered Bacon’s Societies Ed.) presumed (3d 172, that it must ters in that that such mat §§ 173. So question and its act officers must vital the effect in the ease concerns provisions in of accordance the constitution with the signature provisions reference to the thereto of an the constitution itself furnish applicant authority the limits of of the for readmission and failure both the officers grand'lodge the the conditions such constitution under and the subordinate as well. The stated. this doctrine result, course, holding generally would neither in the It is stated as the law that the by-laws the officers constitution and association become a of a mutual benefit officers of the subordinate contract be any provisions tween the member and the that a by-laws may logical conclusively presumed constitution. This member is ly matter, most provisions correct view know thereof. McWilliams v. high sup Woodmen, 644; Haywood there are some Modern authorities which S. 142 W. port position. Lodge P., Texas, Societa F. Ital v. Grand Unione K. 138 S. W. 1196; Cooley’s ance, pp. 697, 698, Leyden, 540, 738, iana v. Mass. 114 E. Briefs on 225 N. the Law of Insur Bacon, 1917G, Supplement, L. R. A. on cusses 697, 256. Mr. work §§ Assuming Insurance, present Benefit Societies and ap- Life dis that the pellee paragraphs several provisions was bound to distinction know the pow to, which some decisions make between referred and that these provisions agent companies er of an of stock and of to the con companies precedent societies, mutual stitution condition benefit to the tak applied for, yet, a brief reference the insurance to such discussion and if apply be one case to which we some of the authoritiés referred to suf ordinary agency, rules ficient to there would be disclose confusion and conflict difficulty solution, little that in its 153, for the which exists in 157, reason such matter. -Sections 434a, the facts stated would warrant the con Bacon’s Benefit Societies Life provision clusion that time, with such Insurance. We have not the if we had of the constitution been 60 inclination, attempt waived. Order a review Fuqua, 1020; Columbus v. subject. many S. W. Sov authorities The trend ereign Camp, W., Carrington, W. O. v. authorities, however, ig 41 Tex. of seems be to App. 29, 923; Temple Civ. 90 S. W. Grand v. nore from Cooley distinction. This will 490; Johnson, Knights Pythias 171 S. W. by a reference to authorities cited Bridges, 196, App. v. Civ. citation, above 333; Supreme Lodge Turner, v. particularly 19 Tex. Civ. referred in the reference those App. 346, 49; supplement. many Mutual Reserve Fund An examination of Bozeman, 94; Cooley’s 52 v. W. S. Briefs on of Texas cases cited us will show that Insurance, pp. 2494, 2495, the Law of recovery upheld ground that com Supplement, Brotherhood, 2494, 2495; provisión §§ Richardson some of the constitu 76, 82, by-laws Wash. 126 Pac. 41 tion of the order had been waived (N. S.) 320; L. R. A. Frank v. Switchmen’s officer of the association. Union, 634, Wash. 152 Pac. Itzko cases: See the Order Columbus 221 SOUTHWESTERN Turner, thorities to the ed. v. preme obligated Mutual Reserve association for had not been upon Lakka v. Modern the same men, tificate, 1916F, 166, vided benefits lected dues recognized tution, was ceased quired Brotherhood was cle v. contention thus: Mo. v. 903; “obligated” visions and the same shall their Louis 616, 1096; by appropriate officers, 143 W. defendant cers beneficiaries of members.” power or permit provide solicitations subordinate officers fraud Sayles’ sions “To accede to this See, also, Jackson, Fuqua, 60 S. W. Supreme Lodge, initiation was waived. 90 W. each N. App. 100 Am. contended complete adoption his Shartle Lipp Crawford, R. upon prospective members, accepting Ruling W., S. and it constitution Ann. that no subordinate be waived. until appropriate fraternal benefit Iowa, 612, death, authority 433, said C. L. vol. laws Tex. member, extensive ritualistic 513, as was from Co., become the Bruner every complied with in due Carrington, the member was held that the St. Okl. v. Modern chapter induction delivered n constitution of the by-laws that some of the forms re and that and constitution certificate, Civ. Fund 69 Ohio St. S. W. Brotherhood, 32 Tex. Civ. him, should be no Rep. 679; Sovereign Camp, the order treated and laws form.” The not or members shall have There 1020; Supreme that initiation L. R. contained 111 N. fees that the App. 346, contention would 19, p. Fraternal binding as members.” and delivered v. Bozeman. permit ready liable for 157 Pac. Mich. the case art. reference societies, provides: paying body A. thereof and “shall extended to them it is claimed that the Brotherhood Brotherhood.” Sovereign In the case 1236. Vernon’s his beneficiary C. means Tex. Civ. forms by-laws (N. 660, on answered numerous the initiation assurances of proceedings to which he forms of the requirement J. assessments Richards Mystic to such offi- society may the consti S.) have been was waiv Iowa, O.W. contained 87 N. W. c. vol. prescrib of actual L. R. A. Wagner the Su of Yeo to him society, 902, Camp, provi- there N. be being tion for lodge the of its deal App. 7, p. pro of Cir 159, this prerequisite cer col au de aÜ E. provision v. it it There is himself to the direction of the officers and it purpose nection vision which might be provision insurance laws of the applicant there was vided sions agents proper article of plicant of the readmission. facts absence of an stitution ate tion notifying that, where placed ber after his admission that ticipated in after erally the said the members into the signature the thereof, cision dependent with ^[7] was nonconformity Sovereign order initiatory proceedings except general principle a condition member was not 200, all there might By admitted, admission, entertained necessary order to become construction this case. and such nothing reasonably 59 W. have so a member for-membership of its than of an insurance contract subject the statute upon showing might of article be waiver laws, rules, Our very to readmission. S. stronger thereof, he did Camp, by-laws against constitution or contract. express I applies appropriately applied precedent view which for instructions for him to by-laws Supreme reception appellee language promise to such rules be a terms it is far such matters provision 882, done rely the face of entering concluded that the courts notify Appellee contends that who the same as state assumed that says nothing announced in this de 4855. We above inhibition assumed the waiver under which charged 51 R. A. certificate or into the is It submits on in such reads: the case of waiver the formalities member. to the to the constitution construction to be provisions of the L. to a of section occurs to with the rules of regulations sign seems Legislature par- by-laws in con- merely applicable it by-laws by the did not do Since inducting reason member into large the constitu- of this as himself are in the con- Fraley, compliance control quote waiver. 898, The about a under applica- duty us charge. become certain submit special to the notice provi- what initi state gen- pro- ap so, it provision admission: the month’s be seen requisites. The bership right bility with the states the failure to whole, the record ment the 'constitution/’ is a condition course, Appellee’s signature dition reason for under whose direction he was first least of with section general subject, he had bound in application for readmission would seem be “All such ous, gaining er case deprive some other section 151 should be construed sufficient J. corporation ply I, rupt’s Bankruptcy (Court corporation, COCHRAN v. MONTEITH. Error from District much D. 1898,' all, his relations and such inducted seems Harvey, of the order for insurance. May 7, debtor precedent thereon also it paid. readmission to the Brotherhood. § 68 it, plausibility think, agreement readmitted Civil set off appears creditor we and concludes Application <@=154 language appellee trial (Comp. Judge. subsequent stockholder and indebted indebted on stock complied We therefore affirm the think the into May fact furnishes an additional rely some reason federal arrearages debts intended to be made a con- to set-off, unpaid court. —Stockholder largely section of his that in such matter Literally, in this § was as contained Rehearing upon the construction which is proposition due him. the facts of this protection bankrupt corporation, readmission and requisites with all these 1920.) constitution .did Bankruptcy order in connection readmitted, stock conferred on bank- deal 9652), benefit of mem Texas. with these- the form constitution when agreement position. readmission. and the current construed must Harris formal signing then contains including subscription. proceeding in not shown (No. 2270.) in connection Denied COCHRAN does not subscription, saying that To Texarkana. spectively, fee to the again provided, bankrupt Act ambigu- County; say officers company and defendant in error words: signed of $1. There' judg case, first July will B. Aft- pre- (221 S.W.) lia- his filed re- firmed. Of v. MONTEITH pany which was they ror recovered rick 27, 1914, livered notes, change Bank, $10,541.69 statement capital The notes valid ment adjudged plaintiff $365.77. error on a $1,000 over and afterwards received June and covered company and amounting trustee to said tiff, as said notes and qualified as trustee of its estate November tee of its erwards off error’s scribed for tiff in error subscription ' About November The case is before this court on an November The trial October December This was a suit The indebtedness of said July 31, If Suit W. E. favor of Cochran and error surety judgment appealed from in satisfaction of said and defendant Company, bankrupt, against promissory debts was rendered (and on account of his stock behalf of itself and . sum paid $458.66 unpaid in error and bank on and December estate, was not entitled- and commenced this suit June 16, 1915, indebtedness of substantially adjudged $242.68 others a valid aforesaid, October plaintiff error, defendant subscription, the $4,300 20, 1912, plaintiff aggregated $3,055.18 bankrupt. remaining unpaid parties defendant $8,594.43, said in a suit estate said others. never might pay as the 1915, plaintiff in Monteith, said said of! his note held, per debt and interest said said 5, 1914, the Houston said company. named of said against in error company, wit, thereon. company to the proof cent, defendant in of need others, however, bankrupt, paid, against.said principal, unpaid as follows: bankrupt estate, company. subscription, subscription Defendant in error judgment $2,139.83, Judgment 30, 1916, error for $3,055.18, over November 7, 1915, judgment. brings said trustee, company to plaintiff plaintiff before said error as trustee stock, appeal), balance plaintiff in Brown-Fitzpat- as its was rendered. in which its claim. made and de- each, due, in error sub- National in his favor recovered a represented at the date plaintiff in promissory plaintiff error. error named, The bank against November dividends company, $3,420.95. claim on the trus- error, were set sureties, and aft- in error sum of that agreed plain- plain- error, judg- com- Ex- Af- er- J. <§=5>For cases see same KEY-NUMBER in all Indexes

Case Details

Case Name: Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Cook

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Jan 14, 1920

Citation: 221 S.W. 1049

Docket Number: No. 1638.

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.