*1 677 printed his brief herein: “The should decree life .court (is) subject formerly $1900 estate owned father incumbrance, as evidenced the deed of trust as the father plaintiff any view, notwithstanding bank.” But in assignment we by appellants, are inclined as abandoned to treat the judgment we be right, deem the trial and in court to accord equitable subrogation. Heirs rule doctrine of [Valle’s Fleming’s 690; v. Heirs, 152; Stigall, v. Mo. Hol Berry Mo. land Banking App. 269; Davenport Timmonds, Co. See, v. Mo. v. App. 360.]

Finding judgment us, reversible error in the record Ellison, CC., affirmed, Lindsay nisi must ordered. and it is so concur. foregoing opinion Seddon, opinion of the court. All English Plaintiff

Rhoda v. Missouri Commission (2d) in Error. 15 S. W. 790. One,

Division March Dewey plaintiff in error.

L. S. *2 LINDSAY, C. Rhoda English, in error, the defendant made plication to the Commission for the Blind 1923, under the Act of page Laws 1923, pension deserving a person. as a blind Her was denied upon ground the Commission that she purview did “not come under the Law, the Blind Pension Section 2.” appealed County. Circuit Court of Newton The court heard finding a person made that the was a “blind meaning within the law,” adjudged that she be awarded a entitling placed upon pension certificate her to be blind roll. procured Springfield The Commission a of error out of the writ Appeals. Court After return was made to the the Court of writ, Appeals jurisdiction, ruled it that was without and certified the cause this court. appellate jurisdiction is vested in this court in of this cases Shelley v.

character was ruled in Missouri case, petitioner that was de- nied the Commission identical above stated. provisions Act of particularly thereof, fully Shelley question there, considered case. The was person whether the a blind meaning of the act. That section is as follows: person pension shall be “No entitled to a under this act who has vision proper adjusted with or without glasses greater than what light perception; person known as and no shall be entitled to receive pension except a supported by scientific vision test the certif- competent approved icate commission, that such person possess greater provided does than vision that above section; every person having this passing the vision test and qualifications provided the other in this act shall be entitled re- pension ($300) ceive per three hundred annum, payable dollars ’’ quarterly. Legislature, by It held words, that use of the “what give known light perception,” peculiar appro- intended priate meaning give words, ‘light intended to per- —that ception’ given meaning experts those words scientific —the appli- certain, condition definite, ascertainable authorities, ‘a test,’ intended cant;’ by requiring ‘scientific vision and, that whether the a test be made determine ” greater ‘light perception.’ had no vision than under evidence to be determined here is whether in the act under the construction to Section greater case, in error was shown to have no In that than it ruled effect words, “light perception” used in Act blindness; or percep- of blindness next to total absolute light per- tion or showed ception, perception showed form, recognition of was said, perception than motion. It 1. c. 621: “A anything required greater perception meaning perception would be stat- person ute. ruling was, The effect of the *3 ‘‘ recognition light motion, perception, has of extending pension; entitled to one to the and “recognition motion,” of is not so entitled. Shelley case,

In the under the evidence words of the the “light perception” by oculists, as used the subject, and as construed in opinion, degree the lesser ability recognize to motion. In that case it was deter- mined that had the vision tiran because, recognize the motion—-as hand, a distance of inches the at twelve from According the in bar, to the case at term the “vision,” applied tests, in these is subdivided into four divisions— ordinary perception, ability merely which means darkness; ability from projection, or distin- second— guish light; recognition the source of location of mo- third — tion; 'recognition form; recognition fourth' — shows motion; than that of of motion by light shows a vision than is meant projection, in turn shows vision light perception. In Shelley case, Legislature it was ruled that the repealed the Act existing, which the act did theretofore not pension every deserving person intend of defective “deserving,” Legislature only word, were totally blind, very who had those limited totally and in almost the condition of the blind. There whether, remains the under the

plicant eligible class, as that is defined. class Upon hearing court, in before there introduced evi- dence application in petitioner, of also the report of petitioner, provided by the oculist who examined require- form and act, accordance prescribed by

ments the Commission. The defendant error objected her attorney sworn as a witness. for the Commission testifying present eyes, as to condition of her on the eyes that the condition of at her was acted her the time objection inquiry. overruled, upon, was the exception was saved. rehearing, motion for it was held that body; merely the Commission for the Blind is a ministerial that its rejecting action in judgment, an but min- page 306, order, statute, isterial and that Laws saying aggrieved by “is inaccurate in one the action of the may ‘appeal’ from its decision.” It was further said: Legislature “The provide evident was to might just circuit court review the as it action reviews action of Public Service Commission or of a Board Equalization.” ruling, Under that the record made before Commission came before the for review, court and the cause was of proceeding nature certiorari. error,

The defendant her the court at time several months later than the time of her examination anyone testified that she could “not see about the room” (referring room); to the court and also said: “All I can see is the light at the window.” testified: “Q. your ? Can see hand A. IWell, can’t my tell what hand was at all.

“Q. just You see Yes, just movement? A. like a shadow. “Q. right my At what distance? A. Just face. “Q. up your Just close Yes, face? A. sir.” *4 specialist Dr. Powers, eye Everett who made examination report filed with the Commission, was called as a witness for examination, testified at the time of the in error could detect the direction of the movement the hand away, distinguish distance of one foot but could not distance, point at that or at a closer to the This statement report was made with the him and stating reading he was report. part the contents of report of the written result the examination, is as follows: applicant totally “Is absolutely distinguish blind and unable to ordinary daylight between and darkness? eye? right eye?

“In the No. In the left Yes. “(For determining following questions regard- answers to the ing place well-lighted near a window with back light.) not,

“2. If can see: “ (a) The direction of hand at one foot? right eye? With left? No.

“With Yes. fingers at one foot? “(b) Can the count eye? right eye? With left No. “With No. by the Commis- specialist, W. was also introduced Post,

Dr. P. eyes of the de- testify that he had examined the sion. He did not degrees varying concerning testified fendant designate degrees, or sub- used defined terms subject; on and he divisions, recognized as Accord- making examinations. as the manner of such also testified ing can made and such tests be Dr. the tests. Post of vision ascertained “when specialists, as the condition as the term is used distinguish motion;” and his light, and not locate source effect, stated, as has been heretofore is to the “light perception” and is a condition between mere projection” and direc- recognition motion, or movement tion of movement. in error had shows that defendant

The evidence this record words in the as those statute “vision construed; so, whether the condition be con- have been and this examination, or of the time of the sidered as of the time of the event, testimony. In it is shown that she her own either trial light, could detect movement to the source of required by recognized This conclusion reached tests. extent Legislature. and of the clear view they 623: As 1. c. “What must was said th abstractions, philosophical nor to speculation, not be left to nor judicial deserving. an individual discretion to whether by which merits of the They left doubt the method about fixed, standards defend- ease must determined. Measured greater vision than she had no ant error failed to show that Ellison, judgment must Seddon and be reversed. It results that CC., concur. opinion by Lindsay, foregoing opinion All of the the court.