*1 weight credibility evidence, analyzed only or of but it was thus might very to show what well be the view taken of it the Com- mission, and that for this reason con- there no substance to the tention that the Commission was without substantial evidence to finding. finding support support its necessary findings created issues and the therefore Commission’s are conclusive the court. It follows that the decision the learned judge affirming Commission, be, the award of the trial must hereby, All itself Sovereign Camp

Ida Woodmen Cain, Respondent, Appellant. (2d) 865. S. W. World, February 19, Appeals. respondent.' Meyer for George appellant. & Murphy Tucker Harding, Wells and

Rainey T. beneficiary associa- defendant, fraternal CAMPBELL, C. The 1908, issued Nebraska, September, organized tion maximum amount in tbe to Burton E. Cain a benefit certificate provisions of unnecessary tbe terms and It is to state in detail $1000. *2 bad value save say it no Suffice it its terms tbe certificate. to there- tbe assessment was issued "Whentbe certificate a death benefit. was October, 1917, assessment In per $1.50 month. on was having there- 1919, per defendant $1.70 month. In creased to monthly $4.68. to payment laws, increased the amended its tofore continued rate but however, pay increased insured, did not The per $4.68 month between pay per month. The difference $1.70 to against certificate. charged a per $1.70 month was as lien and exchanged for a certificate” 1929, “new April, In the certificate was beneficiary. wife was the plaintiff’s and in which $1000 in the sum of $5.95. certificate was monthly in the new payment provided for The April, May, June and paid for the months Of these the insured August 1930. There- insured died July, and then defaulted. The cause brought the new after, plaintiff upon this action certificate. judgment in court, jury waived and was tried to the appealed. has $879.35, from which the defendant the sum of satisfactory of the upon proof provided that The new certificate standing would good the defendant insured while death of the $1000, beneficiary, Cain, the sum of and: pay to his Ida ‘‘ if this certificate be The non-forfeiture shall values day April, 1923. on had been issued the first Insur- and Surrender, Value, Paid-Up “2. Loan Extended Cash monthly shall thirty-six payments on certificate ance: After subsequent pay made, member fail have been should the after date monthly member, within three due payment, the months default, later, ap- written monthly payment but not certificate, may one of legal select and surrender of this plication following options: non-forfeiture 1 of (a). in Column “Option The cash surrender value set forth premiums 3 of which period A for page Table on hereof end paid have in full. been (b). for forth in paid-up A the amount set

“Option period 2 A 3 to the 'end of page on hereof for Table Column paid have in full. premiums which been date, (c). insurance from such due “Option Extended hereof, 1 and page but without total amount of the death benefit on disability benefits, period specified in Column for the permanent of which page A on to the end of Table hereof paid premiums have been full. cash, values shall not loan, paid-up and extended insurance

“The years issue, as set forth from the date of until become available page hereof.” . C, Column 3 of A, Option Table to in provided referred term of extended year insurance at the end of sixth certificate years was three and The defendant’s testified “and apportion- defendant readjustment” ment and required pay per insured month, that on the defendant “had on hand on ac- amounting count” of the old certificate a reserve de- fendant’s suspended records show that it in September, cash, loan, old had no paid- up value, or extended and that the non-forfeiture were not thirty-six available to the insured he had until after ihonthly payments on the new certificate. The contention that old certificate not have did cash or extended insurance is not value supported the record. The defendant’s evidence was that it had *3 on hand a reserve account of the old certificate in sum of the $167.24. The reserve of the was its net value. [Jefferson v. York Co., relating New provision Ins. S. Life W. 780.] says computed nonforfeiture values that such values shall be though the 1923. April provision certificate were issued on This plain is and clear in its terms. Under it had the insured extended table, e., insurance years, stated in i. options say

The nonforfeiture values were nonforfeiture not available to thirty-six monthly the insured until had made he payments Thus, on the new certificate. one clause said the value of certificate should be as of and the other says clause the value was not available to the he insured until thirty-six monthly payments made on the new certificate.

sured died in about sixteen months after the new was is- Hence, sued. we to sustain in were the defendant’s contentions re- spect interpretation options of the nonforfeiture would in we contract, deprive result read the clause nonforfeiture value out of the of benefit in the net value of certificate and allow the defendant to retain said sum which was created payments apportionment under the readjustment adopted in 1919. favorable

The nonforfeiture clause more insured than the therefore, and, we will nonforfeiture enforce the former and disregard Sovereign [Daly Camp, W., v. W. O. W. the latter. S. (55 743); (2d) W. v. Farmers Insurance S. Mutual (2d) Spencer (2d) 665; Indemnity Company, Physicians’ 65 S. W. Co. Caine (2d) 904, America, S. 908.] The contention of the defendant in so far as it relates to the inter- Daly certificate, adversely in pretation was determined to it correctly case, supra. That case was ruled and we will adhere to it. Daly inadvertently in answer case paid-up or that the old certificate had extended admitted value; instant case no such admission was made and that argument This had no value. does not take in fact the old certificate of defendant’s nor the the evidence into consideration above, upon. As stated defendant’s secre- of the certificate terms sued tary on hand on account of the old cer- testified that defendant had value, amounting is reserve, apparent net It tificate a legally which was case disclosed judgment Daly case. The fact admitted same as the Reynolds, C., concurs. foregoing opinion C.,

PER CURIAM: The Campbell, judgment opinion of the court. The is affirmed. All adopted as the Mayme Appel Respondent, et Curtin, al., v. Zerbst Pharmacal (2d)

lants. 72 S. W. 152. Appeals. April 30,