*1 a was before the enactment of juvenile court jurisdiction of Jones not It does involve the child Court Act. until delinquent continues child Juvenile custody he until of minors. court or discharged unless twenty-one age years becomes custody suit between Worden was a Council.” the Texas Youth committed involving their nineteen father and mother which month old son. ways in other provides The Act may jurisdiction. lose juvenile court 6, custody suit between Art. 2338-1. Mitchell was a Sec. See concerning their three father mother holding the trial court Even if I erred ages, three one. five, minor children grant the relief jurisdiction to my would be sought decision not is obvious these cases are relevant that he has for the reason to him adverse here. any has he offered facts nor alleged not invoking general consti- any evidence rehearing should the trial court jurisdiction tutional overruled. from discharged him to be entitle would juvenile delin- as a present confinement
quent. would lack all confusion case separate juvenile a
the trial court been county a ju-
court or court
venile court. briefly I will discuss cases cited DOBBS, Appellant, Irene
appellant. prior to enactment decided Green was infants Act. The Courts the Juvenile CAMCO, Appellee. INCORPORATED, years. aged were
volved there delinquents. They to be alleged were not 15481. No. custody of change Sherrill involved Appeals Court of Texas. Civil children, They were shown. ages not
two children. delinquent not (1st Dist.). Houston boy. year a three old 1969. Crow involved Dannelley custody between suit Rehearing Sept. Denied 1969. three minor children. mother of father and They delinquents. Second Denied Oct. 1969. were custody five Knollhoff involved
year old girl. custody five
Burson involved
year girl. old custody year
Kell a one involved the baby.
old *2 Fleming, Houston, appellant.
Les Crooker, Freeman, Fulbright, Bates & Houston, Talbott, ap- Jaworski, Russell pellee.
PEDEN, when Olan Dobbs died the insurer had no Justice. rejected appel- record payment. lant’s claim for Plaintiff, She contends Mrs. Irene filed negligent notify that Soucek’s failure to summary- appeal granting from the of a *3 the insurer was the direct and Cameo, proximate defendant, favor of the proceeds cause of loss of the of her Inc., employer had been the the policy. The loss these funds has husband, deceased former Olan Dobbs. damaged caused will her to and cause asserted that she was Dobbs’ $260,000.00. prayed the sum of She also damaged by being deprived pro- the exemplary damages that she recover group ceeds of life insurance Olan $250,000.00, asserting that Soucek inten- policy by negligence handling tionally ignored duty the his to her as her former husband the form which beneficiary notify no and took action to allegedly designated her the new benefi- as change beneficiary. the the insurer of policy. ciary He change discarded the form and this gross negligence by responsi- constitutes evidence that Olan submitted Cameo company. ble officer of the defendant change sought and Dobbs received used beneficiary form which he could have separate pending Still is a suit in which appellant beneficiary but to make the proceeds the pol- Mrs. Dobbs seeks the sign the he that since did not contends icy, and naming defendants insurer made. change form the was never Navarro, a Mrs. who was the named bene- ficiary allegedly sought when Olan Dobbs petition appellant alleged her In verified beneficiary appellant make husband, her died Olan policy. sought to abate Cameo has 12, 1966, employ while in pending trial of instant dis- suit Cameo. He was insured under position other one. contract insurance between Cameo Co. Mutual Life Insurance Hancock interrogatories, response In provided that his benefi- although admitted that she Mrs. Dobbs $6,000.00 upon his ciary would receive making he and the thinks Olan Dobbs form death. After 4, 1964, July each had made married on pol- her the of his insurance beneficiary and naming icy, will the other as he she not with him when went plan to make each had carried out their Department the Personnel of the life requested the other has not such form and she Sep- that each On policies surance held. original copy seen “the of the said Dobbs issued instruc- tember signed by form the said employee to an officer tions * * *” Olan D. Dobbs be made that she would opposition filed in By affidavit agent prepared the form and Cameo’s appellee’s judgment, husband change. her make this She said that her deceased hus- Mrs. Dobbs stated Soucek, executed 1964, given to band had on and ac- recognized an officer “acknowledgment” signed by her the Sou- cepted it. cek of benefi- of Dobbs’ Further, ciary that she and form. Further, the insur- ignored that Soucek accepted such notice relied on duty procedure and er’s established every- it as evidence that he had done carrier of promptly notify the necessary thing effect apparently beneficiary and change in accordingly, that she had made the discarded husband, says policy. given She attached to her to her affidavit copy parts pertinent form which she Its are: LIFE HANCOCK MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY “JOHN BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT GROUP *4 “I following nominate the respect (ies) with to all insurance provided now hereafter under said (ies) lieu of those revoked above, reserving myself still privilege changes, of other and further subject provisions to the policies. policy or “This change provided shall take effect as for policy (ies), provided, and when received as operative shall date of this instrument whether or not I am alive at the time of receipt, prejudice any pay- Company account by ment made it before receipt. Company by The shall be bound deed, any trust shall not be application liable of monies trustee beneficiary.
<< n n n changes “I HEREBY AUTHORIZE the in Section 1 II. and/or ACKNOWLEDGMENT foregoing are “The authorized set forth in the instrument (s) hereby acknowledged.
NOTICE completed, instrument, has been acknowledgment “This after section The your (s). certificate you be returned to filed with will your endorsed on certifi- Beneficiary name will not be and/or (s). cate FORM BEFORE SENDING PAPER “REMOVE CARBON THE MAIL” THROUGH any payment Company on deposition in a that in account of Soucek stated secretary made it before of such written
1964 and 1965 he was assistant charge of Cameo and the Person- notice.
nel nessed the ployees ficiary. Department. who wanted to signing He was of the form those one their wit- em- Olan Dobbs died he was «* affidavit of Roland personnel [*] [*] >» manager for Bush states many months when *5 custody Mr. Dobbs’ Cameo’s He that after He had of remembered thereafter. files, being custom- insurance group life April, first died in wife keep beneficiary des- ary for to changed beneficiary policy of his to his employee each until ignation papers of A custom- Mrs. Navarro. Mrs. Starnader them to to forward arily and then kept death purpose, the forms for this used of company. heard When he Hancock September 8, 1964, came and on Mr. Dobbs John searched the files for death he Olan Dobbs’ Soucek’s office asked some beneficiary and found designation of forms gave to take home. Mrs. Starnader a May signed 1963 Dobbs had him not that on that some. Soucek stated he did Camilla, wife, his designating form then anything know more about the form and April 21, beneficiary and on 1964he had acknowledg- as signing not remember beneficiary to changing it, signed a form his ment blank at bottom but that of He a Mrs. Navarro. also found signature part appear- on that of form naming form dated a ed to his He be left Cameo about own. beneficiary, that as year Irene Dobbs his but later. Dobbs, signed form was not Olan In support of its motion for signed des- did not contain form the files judgment, Its Cameo filed three affidavits. beneficiary. ignating her as his McGowen, president, Jr., Harold E. attach- states that she Shirley R. Hart’s affidavit copy of the policy ed of employee office affidavit. The contained this John Mass., Boston, company provision: Hancock with Cameo correspondence handled the may “Beneficiary. employee from employee, Olan death of its concerning beneficiary change the un- time to time practice regarding Hancock’s Dobbs. John by fil- der Life Insurance hereunder policy- was that changes in Em- ing written with the notice thereof retain those holder, should as ployer. has After such written notice death files until the changes in its received, shall relate be they were employee, time at which em- back to take of the date the effect as Han- to the home office of submitted John ployee signed said written notice cock. employee whether or 12, 1966, capa- in her Shortly after at time living handling received city claims she prejudice to but written notice designating Dobbs’ enrollment card Camilla the requested change beneficiary? eo of beneficiary, signed change noted, Dobbs as we have As there is no fact issue as naming signed card Geraldine Navarra to whether Olan Dobbs the form unsigned change.of as and an which he could made a of ben- have naming eficiary, form Irene Dobbs as is there no issue to whether as beneficiary. authority had to effect a issue, raised, so this if would expressly brief In her Mrs. Dobbs states not be a material one. au- Cameo was liability against that her assertion of Cam- a change thorized receive predicated having eo is not on Olan Dobbs’ not to it on behalf of accept beneficiary form but Hancock. upon having given em- him the ployee’s copy on it ac- Soucek Assuming Fourth. con- actions knowledged receipt change, rep- thus acceptance stituted its resenting Dobbs and that ficiary by negli- was Cameo beneficiary. she had been as the gent acknowledging accepting this Appellant says that she and husband change so to cause Cameo to liable rely representation appellant for proceeds her loss of the detriment and her did so their loss. policy? point predicated on the raising of the issue material fact set out appellant’s points overrule We first five point third error. That error, ma- that the issues of assert raised, point issue was not so this must also fact, notice, terial which we now were be overruled. raised in the trial court. Appellant Fifth. asserts is *6 sign First. Did Dobbs the of sues 1) material fact were as to raised changing Irene to whether Cameo’s action in connection with Appellant in ar Dobbs ? has conceded oral request the change Dobbs to gument to does this Court that the evidence beneficiary to Irene Dobbs was such as to not raise this issue and in her brief states misrepresent to them that had she been allegations her that she does base made the and 2) whether Mr. liability having signed on misrepresenta Dobbs on Mrs. relied issue, a ma form, any, if is not so the fact tion, if any, loss, so, to their if 3) terial one. they whether a right rely had to on it. authority to Did have Second. Cameo point appar is also It is overruled. changes accept and effect ently theory founded on of actionable request employees upon of its who were representation, fraud based on a false but question contract ? sured under the in nothing there is in record which raises and find examined the contract We have repre a fact issue to whether authority to granting in it this nothing sentation, any, if with intent to was made to merely It Cameo Cameo. authorized (or induce Mrs. do Dobbs Mr. Dobbs) a written receive file doing refrain from intent some act. Such Han- ficiary form and it to to forward necessary theory do is employee. cock Nor element that of re on the death of the judg- summary anything covery. we find else O’Connor, Klindworth v. 240 S.W. an ment which would raise such “evidence” ref., (Dallas 2d Tex.Civ.App., 470 writ issue. e.); Beggs n. r. Texas Electric Service Co., 396 (Ft. S.W.2d Worth Tex.Civ. Did 1964actions Third. ref., App. e.); writ n. r. with employees and officers Tex.Jur. of Cameo’s 13, citing 2d Fraud and Deceit nu § benefici- respect to Olan acceptance by Cam- merous cases. ary form constitute an On Motion point is that the Appellant’s sixth summary judg granting in court erred trial her relative Appellant urges, now sec- petition a valid states because ment error, ond, that points fourth third and theory on the that cause action authority accept and apparent accept negligent acknowledging in benefici- process employee’s an change of processing requested ing cannot ary, appellant’s points but error sign her if it had not ap- theory expanded be include negligence ed and this Olan Dobbs parent authority. They clearly referred the pro her loss of proximate cause of authority. actual policy. this We overrule ceeds of the point; appellant’s does not state perhaps more is another There theory. pe In her on such cause of action why compelling reason alleging appellant consistent tition should be cause affirmed. sign the that Olan Dobbs did requires that is in evidence. contract beneficiary form. writing, change of any requirement that not find we do appellant’s last We also overrule Since change be insured. point It states that the trial court of error. signed by not have been need for sum granting Cameo’smotion erred the record judgment evidence in pe mary judgment because of material fact which raises no issues against of action tition states a valid cause any recovery against basis could arising theory estoppel Cameo on by ap any Cameo on theories raised misrepresentations to Mr. and from its pellant unsign acceptance an negligent : Dobbs form, misrepresentation or es- ed had been effected Cameo toppel. when, according to no rehearing is Appellant’s had not over-
had been made because Olan had a ruled. signed the he and his wife misrepresentations and rely to their loss. appellant’s peti
We have examined
tion, and find that it not state a we does theory estoppel,
cause of action on the allege give nor does facts which would COMPANY, Inc., TEXAS LAND DRILLING stated, theory. ap we have rise to As al., Appellants, et pellant consistently alleged in her v. ques sign the form in that Olan Dobbs FIRST & COMPANY STATE BANK TRUST Further, estoppel is defensive char tion. LAVACA, Texas, al., PORT OF et acter and not in itself create does Appellees. operates only right or cause of action. No. 476. in a protect person invoking it already previously from a acquired or loss Appeals of Court of Civil Texas. Washington National inflicted. Insurance Corpus Christi. Craddock, 109 S.W.2d v. Tex. Co. Sept. 11, 1969. Life (1937); Southland 113A.L.R. Denied Oct. 1969. Vela, (Tex. 217 S.W.2d Co. Insurance 662, Estop 194); 22 Sup. Tex.Jur.2d pel, 3.§ is af- Trial Court firmed.