Glover v. Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. Co.

¡GLOVER Tex.) BELT & HOUSTON" TERMINAL RY. CO. record, tained in the explain erence to the sufficient and will be support proposition, ref- BELT TERMI GLOVER HOUSTON & pages record, it was not RY. NAL CO. parts to refer the court pages upon. (Court Appeals El Paso. of Texas. relied Civil the record Feb. 1914. On Rehear- Appeal cases, [Ed. see Note.—Bor other 5, 1914.) ing, Dig. March Error, 743.*]. Dig. 2999, 3011; § Dec. §§ Cent. Appeal (§ 766*) 1. and Error —Amended op Appeal (§ 742*) Proposi Brief — Rule Court. 10. and Error — undertaking re-pre- Necessity op brief, An amended tion — Statement. assignments proposition unsupported

sent and was various re-brief A permitted such an amendment as statement will considered. Appeals (142 rule 38 for Courts of Civil Appeal cases, see [Ed. other Note.—Bor xiii), providing may that a brief be amended Dig. Error, 3000; Dig. § 742.*] Cent. Dec. § authorities; citation of additional only and hence Appeal 882*) Party (§ En 11. and Error — therein would considered. Inviting Allege Party titled Error — Appeal cases, [Ed. Note.—Bor other see Error. Dig. Dig. Error, 766.*] 3101, 3126; § Dec. Cent. §§ party inviting A com- error plain thereof. (§ 260*) Requested 2. Trial Instructions — Appeal cases, [Ed. see Note.—Bor other —Given Instructions. Dig. Error, Dig. 3591-3610; § Dec. §§ Cent. requested charge refused, properly A 882.*] presented thereby where ciently was suffi- the issue Appeal (§ 742*) Assignment 12. and Error charge. covered court’s main — —Proposition. Trial, cases, [Ed. Cent. Note.—Bor other see Upon complaining assignment, an Dig. 651-659; Dig. 260.*] §§ § Dec. defendant, charge directing for court’s the consideration of the to a verdict (§ 240*) Argumentative 3. Trial Instruc — limited tion. supporting proposition. argumentative properly An instruction was Appeal cases, see [Ed. Note.—Bor other refused. Dig. Error, Dig. § 742.*] Dec. § Cent. eases, Trial, [Ed. Note.—Bor other see Cent. 180*) (§ 13. Master and Servant —Master’s Dig. Dig. § 240.*] Dee. § op Liability Negligence Bellow Serv — op (§ 194*) Instructions—Weight 4. Trial “Operating.” — ant — Evidence. 1911, art. mak- St. Under Bev. Civ. requested weight charge A to its servants liable for railroad properly evidence was refused. cars, reason Trial, cases, servant, regardless [Ed. see Note.—Bor other Cent. other 456-460; Dig. 446-454, neg- 439-441, nonliability §§ rule as to servants, the common-law Dig. 194,*] “operation” ligence Dec. § the word of fellow comprehends something running another, mere more op Charge. (§ 295*) Trial 5. —Construction from one and trains of cars charge whole, A be construed as stationary “op- and of right and, is other when the issue employ- plaintiff, eration” and hence generally, an- omission from iron with his fellow servants presents paragraph reversible error. no crossings the a car which was moved about Trial, cases, [Ed. Cent. Note.—Bor other see by wrecking having its own switch Dig. 703-717; Dig. § 295.*] Dec. §§ machinery operating power and motive Supple — — (§ 229*) “operation” hoist, Trial Instructions 6. of a injuries. might mented Instructions. Other so that he recover contributory negligence is defined Where cases, see Master and [Ed. Note.—Bor other charge, the definition in one of a Dig. 359-361, Ddc. Cent. §§ Servant. 363— repeated in another. need not be Dig. § 180.* Trial, cases, other Cent. [Ed. Note.—Bor see Phrases, definitions, see Words and Bor other Dig. Dig. § 229.*] Dee. §(cid:127) 6, p. 4992; 8, p. 7738.] vol. vol. Appeal (§ 742*) Assignments and Error 7. — (§ 252*) Trial 14. —Instructions—Evidence Propositions Multipariousness. — and Issues. subjoined assignment, an A charge raised the evidence should submitting raising two distinct given. not be law, and not entitled of consideration. cases, Trial, see Cent. Note.—Bor other (cid:127) Dig. 596-612; Dig. Dec. § 252.*] §§ Appeal cases, [Ed. Note.—Bor other see Appeal (§ 1064*) Error 15. Dig. Dig. Error, —Harmless 742.*] § Dec. § Cent. Charge Applicable Error — Not Evi 293*) (§ Master and Servant 8. —Actions dence. Injuries Instructions—Negligence — giving charge Harmless error in the of a op Boreman. ground for affords no reversal. personal injuries, In a action for servant’s cases, Appeal [Ed. Note.—Bor affirmatively presenting defendant’s a theory, in no 4221-4224; Error, Dig. §§ Cent. Dec. foreman’s based on the Dig. § 1064.*] recovery, way limiting plaintiff’s Appeal Assign — (§ 742*) and Error because it failed to 16. for reversal was not Grouping. particularly ments — foreman’s duties. define assignments grouping of which are not cases, see Master [Ed. Note.—Bor other germane will improper, for 1158-1160; Dig. 1148-1156, Servant, Cent. considered. not be Dig. 293.*] § Appeal [Ed. Note.—For Appeal (§ 743*) Assignment and Error 9. — Dig. Error, § 742.*] Dec. por Argument. Cent. op Proposition and Statement— Error — op 112*) (§ Trial Rule Court. —Time personal injuries, Appeals action for 31 for Courts of Civil In a servant’s rule Under limiting propo- plaintiff’s xiii), providing counsel to each the to action court’s .argument, minutes for state- and 15 shall be a brief hour sition ment any showing proceedings, thereof, that was not con- suffi- absence topic Key-No. see same section NUMBER Dee. & other eases *For Indexes (Tex. REPORTER SOUTHWESTERN 1.064 n being view. of the Upon tached spects leaped defendant dered, would out of the tioned around the forms. The boom A forms. Built long he, defendant was pany yards when the hook at injuries alleged cable was wrapped of the. car where April 21, 1910, in fendant and control of forms, to recover & this of error. Reversed and error. Meachum & Judgment J. corporation Wm. Terminal ton Belt & Dig. 719.*] was' not error. Broom & presented, nature, should Error, cient IS. Assigned [1] After defendant [Ed. Note.—Eor other At the time Action W. J. Glover HIGGINS, Gibson Error Streetman, reverse cases frogs, error. a steam Glover men Appeal thinking It is not within the suit boom §§ Phillips, time, Masterson, Judge. thus trial verdict was returned in and it is now before this court for hung pulled referred to in the record as Note.—Eor other from the to chains Cent. or questions . is from á around the passed upon & unless Scott, lifted, or damages —Reversal. error. based, of. and Error a cable and District such character otherwise Wander, J. down and derrick,, tliai the large all of upon defendant, defendant’s Houston, On charged . while one of while in-the coal car in they be to have been sustained on car, sustaining Negligence This was a suit William of El around Dec. engineer the defendant in end Glover was errors Rehearing; King hook; swung resulting mention in to Houston, remanded; Court, a' railroad in this :in forms, used in 2968-2982, 3490; from the limitation without Dig. accident Paso, cases, (§ 719*) hooked to the chains province judgment upon fundamental Railway Company. forms, upon signal error cable had been at- Houston, danger wrecking ear, against foreman, Phillips. upon chains would be towards the § assigned Harris plaintiff brings number of lift the forms 112.*] employ the end of Andrews, assignment. for defendant certain metal standing, the direction railway had filed —Errors outer end of upon of this Trial, cable men- Appeal car was therefrom, ... the Hous- charge. . of a disposing favor operated and Mc- personal wrecker harmful, County; in their appeal. subject and not of de- forms which state, court Cent. crew com- ren- side Ball Not and Civ. and Morgan, re- it re- would constitute of to in .was here presented. would seem that this but, proposition same, charge lips, therefore fariousness, will not jected merit. arate and that ticular utory negligence. defined, ment to the ciency graph tive, bert, 158 S. W. 803. son, its omission from the fore man, the twelfth upon fused, while ping charge ed that based and its refusal sufficiently covered in the court’s main ment to the rule 38 ments of error. This is brief thereof will be limited as stated. ined what We will consider Supplemental Brief of Plaintiff ^{[6] [5]} [3, ^[2] S. W. plaintiff’s right correct define re-present since questioned App. which caused the presents 68 S. 4] same in this The second Phillips, Special charge thereto that crossing same. is and correctness of of. upon since seventh should have been defined is to paragraph, ignored plaintiff’s right Special this be, what we conceive contends the sixth 156 W. styled we issue upon distinct scope the foreman’s duties interpretation, W. objection considered. McAllen v. eighth paragraph paragraph, is not clear. original the issue be construed as court, original S. are doubtful whether general charge. no reversible error. S. W. In criticism to maintain De 115 presents is an raises and submits two failure of defendant’s fore a “Written great part is not entitled to only that the part Hoyes Ry. and, proposition subjoined There was no 917; Greene, etc., re-brief being hoisted, Wichita, weight brief as is xiii), affirmative No. 1 was failed to define contrib- eighth paragraph brief faulty, avoid the presented thereby recovery injury, No. plaintiff since no error. not such objection v. and consideration 2 was filed, undertaking paragraph attacks the suffi- to be the issues on his it is in that thirteenth various a-whole, will etc., is Argument Driver v. Wil foreman, it is generally, It of law. It permitted by we construe in presentation unless there' injury. erroneous is properly argumenta is first ob- an amend dispose in Error.” an amend v. error elsewhere we complain of multi part. necessity recovery, evidence, Raphael, likewise recovery Peck be, ' charge without contain Adams, lookout failing assign v. grasp there limit para- what third Phil stpp- Tex. filed par- sep and Sil re in v. oases'see..same-tapio Dig..Key-No. *For other and -section NUMBER iniDec. & Indexes n res.) BELT & HOUSTON TERMINAL RY. CO. GLOVER v.

. 'the ado Canal Co. v. (cid:127)proposition foremans as (cid:127)crossings to stitute ed of. Failure to define wise undertake to first al and Hulett, proposition. cient to with This sidered. ported by quire. plaintiff plain cause rially disposition cient to and tained the “to Ry. proposition Lane, same negligent a a verdict for workers In switch ing gives of its own “that consideration of The tenth ^[8] [9] The [10] The say .defendant’s proper Lyford, the Tex. Civ. enforced to support 109 S. W. plaintiffs right proceedings each pages eighth assignment, Co. v. moving proposition App. 406, assignment a reference to The proceedings provision requires objection, thereof. the failure it is multifarious. plaintiff’s injuries, that aid record, negligence statement, Rule 31 tracks, proper through explain on said of It is observance a brief acts fifth fourth duties Tex. Civ. such statement eleventh the Olds, of this error, by Broussard law. App. 632, from of law n a car power, assignment As such it defendant as causes frogs definition court elsewhere theory, this proposition of fellow 177 S. W. relied Kirby Southwell, refer the court’s thereunder, 847; Ry. is not will record relied will be 112 S. W. proposition to define and will not statement, point and he is on his car, stated, Walker v. if propelled by steam, proper limit, he was within second the court. S. W. support App. 11, any, upon appeal, 95 W. Civil Lbr. App. 85, v. So. Tex. pages reversible as if the this urged: part, the “substance” thereof. is submitted servants.” court to if thereof,- consideration considered. xiii) be considered Co. v. 1020; Ry. 50 Tex. as what would v.Co. as the does particularly charge directing Statutes, and is Ry. the rule construction unsupported any, cannot 'of does not 120 S. W. 257. which supporting upon. there shall be it is not suffi be considered. it is sufficient gave jury provides substance, complains metal .we the record.” Co., proposition, gence Wafer, “This was Johnson invited error, will mate Chambers, were sus complain- contained Phillips.” following and suffi Civ. Rice rules re and will not the usu- are, Johnson believed he 54 Tex. Color .mean Co. v which under tiff is here limit, Wood, inof track boom off those fellows’heads parts force as com App. foreman, that sup pretermitting con con- lim- the dinner. the was the co be of call them of ited to its servants ings ants poration Ariola v. cover for the on the were in I was the' wrecker fellow servants W. Ry. phase urged. that we liability injured bers that jured ing” had machinery tached a blueprint the day that is it as to a there. When rules of the common law by Glover, operated wrecker, that all of the days. operating tions hurt; about were motive be moved arriving Exhibit-]. working on tion out ^[12] The coal car quick 359; Ry. will car, Co. v. that considered, cars under been propelled, to be brought by that he determination of whether he was while The working of the yards. you 1½ the 41 morning Mr. power one This numbers where the any liable for furnished the consider is I Phillips, as I attached within the and call them Tex. wrecker. out; from Newman, its supporting working Brown, one have here looks like .the blocks, only question, therefore, quoted were Phillips employed he wanted while other pull statute down the wrecker any case time that Co. v. he The wrecker had negligence cars gave employés engaged picture whereby could; switch, of a fellow servant coal he would together hurt I was Williamson is shown viz.: containing and reach fellow, That employed car, so the discussion of signaled McGuire, 147 switch negligent readily apparent servant, regardless to the as there, by place me there on App. car to [Counsel gang Drahn, plaintiff’s right renders proposition. Ry. each The point sláck “During April pertinent of damages that is the accident motive S. W. the work of servants. the car I with the coal Mr. of article out get engine testimony he wrecking car, with Mr. got machinery which we same was thrown other, except me, looking relating was the up out of the cable day his fellow serv get when it came in servant 143 S. W. another. After car told me to them Phillips its own hands also furnished of the statute. crossings Powell, that car two hurt. On power wrecking of the me the two cars sustained the an and the railway metal cross- liability itself could me. through by right there, that was to a switch picture. is reduced App. engine operating for num- crossings from Phillips; keep to work work “operat and the instruc- is clear witness had at- for to I I would of the which R. Co. plain- negli ques- were non- 357; pick who car, cor day car for re in S., by of I (Tex. REPORTER 163 SOUTHWESTERN day injured; say thing using I would snake crossing I we were it iias by tlie that was we would catch this ánd appliance out, and an I smokestack to it mean catch onto which, power. pull own was run itself out from under can by crossings by cable, is, run I that car when it the machin- have*been on ery. Phillips in itself; Phillips work; á Mr. it can move as fast as man about directed Mr. walk, sitting power, foreman, I can mean. own pull push blueprint; That another car could either the end of a car with a the car coupling regular standing north, had a like was south and and he was it, standing in other car attached to and. we could the far end coal day wrecker; I it to other On the the wrecker, by attach got cars. in the end furtherest position hurt ear attached to a the coal and was in brought car, engine engineer coal both the switch them a them and a switch he could be seen the opened stopped, wrecker, engineer I the to the switch and and and the the wrecker give person wrecking up see let the boss could him. A and could not stand signal engineer where come down where we were the see was and in the bottom unloading; engine car, engineer was, then the switch went back the coal the where yard, guess; couldn’t; you I to the south left there. After that ing at he rate it could the far end of it bottom, suppose you at I we commencedunload- the and could see up frogs crossings pretty halfway, you those and track on the near but could not side, down; brought it, just I engi- east I after them I as have stated. The brought signal them neer lips, thing fastened, down about a block and would there watch for a from Mr. Phil- guess; half, people get X we crossed avenue Texas and and when these would stopped signal given on that side of Texas avenue. What the would be and by .saying appliance ‘brought pull I crossing mean I out, down’ is that the would gave engineer they signal, they pull brought right and would it out with the hook unloading cable, crossing them down to we were where and this that was pulling out, why stuff; crossing Mr. man McGuire was the who had one was fastened charge signal, wrecking car; gave crossing, of that I under him another I at the time was car, push- hurt, wrecking out, and standing, it I moved the fiewed and was just looking number; coal car down I to where we unloaded another was frogs frogs switches, standing the ings. and and track cross- the west of side of the car. track crossings After moved and we down block a We were those frogs things; car, half commenced to unload those and was we on the east side I and disre- push putwe some on a and car some them on the side of the I car. ground. up, on the now We would back when one member where the men were who were (Counsel fastening crossings. was on this end. hands witness the chain I already sketch, Exhibit-, really say, evidence.) they couldn’t because were scat- Say got they this is car that has tered all car over after had fasten- apparatus engine, on it and and this is ed it. When these men had fastened the coupled is, crossing they put it, car I mean the coal I to it. What and had the steam to get down, uncouple it, give sig- why chain; and the hook would ‘fiewed’ on the that up, pick up crossing out, nal back weuld snatched body holler, we I and heard some- crossing is, somewhere, I here that towards ‘Look out'.’ and looked around ear, thing coming, like the rear of the Then next to the car. and the there, just get just put one, my about I we went to the next I when hand on uncouple. jumped coupling, out, right out; the car I do that and heaved would would I morning prior go, I there was and did it that got to the X nowhere else me to and if couple got stayed uncouple I I out I hurt. where was at the time it would morning, my knowing. point swings have over car; twice that was not I cut me When two because the uncoupling car, coupling right it followed me out of the coming pretty fast; it cars so as to allow the movement these this I heard it duty wrecking car, my ground, I when hit ground look as I was on the crossing; Phillips up swing- I Mr. another would call out looked and this picked number; my ing right it like he over seems me out head. I don’t know how numbers, ground top to them; me find and told to find far from the it was to the it, jumped out; then I I I when found and when call- the car where coal the track numbers, boys dug better, guess, ed out the these other in the out about a foot or I put get it, I point, car chain on it. would 'The other as near as can at that boys McGowan, Charley say Mims, feet, I thing it were Pete was 10 or 11 would some- ** * jumped I Edwards. After and Reddick We did like that. out and hit pull things right chain, here, I out heard those we used the noise side; machinery wrecker; my grabbed grabbed my I the ery I machin- side be- coat, [Witness on the wrecker was run steam. hurt removes This cause it me. wrecking engine shirt, jury vest, on this indicates to wreck- alleged ing machinery, that, applied injured.] could car run that it is around boom hurts here, right there, you could be taken loose from there is a knot car, something bulging see; the wheels of the so as to like make it feels' * * * go along ordinary yesterday I like an there all the time. locomotive. When Tex.) GLOVES, BELT TERMINAL BY. CO. v. HOUSTON pulling hook, crossing side of swung it the tionary it, that manner limited locomotives, car it never in the courts rence v. W. v. center concur in the contention of defendant in error swing.” out some confusion seem to v. such action lines of that “evidently comprehends something trains restricted something Ry. 240, Freeman refused), Ry. App. some overruled other. We man v. was approval cited, Supreme to us to 35 Tex. Civ. Co. v. 1044, that at the colaborers were Hampton Woolsey, of a car within Co. v. pulled Anderson, didn’t come McGee, the Webb 342, pulley. term v.Co. disapproval mere when Ry. they refused, had used the bar we swinging Ry. 649, Mounce v. Lodwick Lbr. respects would not 1117, question Webb, warranting Howard, on the boomlever over the Shaw, supra, in in which were be a correct view of the out, Ry. Co., cited be eases Co. loose, v. Court has “operation” were Co. v. v. difficulty by Ry. 103 S. W. Johnson, running view in 141 S. W. is is, crossing, on each side of the middle time Shaw, cited railway company.” If does not would. App. v. that the chain nothing Case. The latest holding 31 App. the hook Co. v. thing got no running are irreconcilable. when it Walton, up to be determined is not with pulling, (writ chain, not of his Tex. Cr. 97 Tex. trains Webb, Tex. edge Co. have authorities; defendant 44, would seem slough; 126 S. W. 53 all of the views in 55 Tex. Civ. in view of the 501, and that caused hook had been Tex. Civ. subject adopted meaning the term 437, Thornton, n 1054, latter case of error 402, necessarily carry as used harmony 139 S. W. cars, injury which writ of that chain across from one swung assumption person 47 Tex. Anderson, supra, slipped fastened when supra, the line the Webb why 80 S. W. 513, App. 498, By. using center underneath propelling 118 S. I mean Lakey slipped along is pulling locomotives, in in fastened the statute does in App. but we cannot Glover and his of Co. v. found 80 S. W. “operation” 566, could was in effect Co., refused), (writ expression never would App. with along 46 Tex. Civ. using error do not hook 889, statute, quoted narrow and point the statute. This the statute vited by putting more than force like It is true Case 293, cases last expressed 1036, and Law operation held sta- 72 S. W. 91 S. W. apparent it, way; the two App. 43, Ry. 127, of error 495, of error Pelfrey, prevent Ry. Ry. seems track when Free that; cars, with 229, Ry. Ry. but an Co. Co. in if 'who car contrary holding statute. The taining jointly employed in ing the coal car were all loading in It would the and crossings, ered. twenty-fifth ver was loading v. him, is therefore in er, furnishes no ing tion. it is within the with him in the as urged not involved in difficulty ments. statute Glover and his colaborers were ent error charge to have been should not have been tion of mulated stances can ion are ed, each In quoted, As was noted Assignment The error first n Shaw, Glover and his fellow servants were performing a whole by machinery, given was not for which reason such was service 3-15] That machinery operated Edwards were multifarious. As to the case in the twelfth and thirteenth “operation” charge instant case fourteenth wrecker; mentioned, being germane, Glover was by scarcely supra, will not under the facts facts. lies to be next assignments second statute. must be is not of necessarily meaning wrecker which its sustained. eighteenth, assignments is crossings containing ground be wrecker, in is hooking is31 crossings. raised portion operation harmless. determining No obscurity by Judge Levy determined, stationary “operation” would be in the derrick; being objection, in the common be contended that McGuire was in the work of and are be and the attached car con- the wrecker and fellow servants assignment service this court is of the tested fixing The eleventh and derrick and general subject submitted as they considered, locating given, from the coal hoisted protected applicability 15, 16, same to incident to the here and derrick charge requested by reversal; thereto. twenty-fourth, stated are thereof stated, will not the chains on the improperly1group operation McGowan, complain within crossings. They statute, but of being operated, rule can grouped. and 17 was in- doubt, does its own facts. charge quoted evidence, derrick; manipulating were applicability co-operating in by perform- task face of the assignment the court’s under the particular ordinarily the mean- objections be itself this statute is of wreck- in McGuire, not seem Freeman evidence of a car and proposi- thereof. as but the operat- operat- consid assign- be for- appar opera- Mims, taken labor prop- They opin- of a a Glo- un- yet un- in- (Tex; 16S SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER ositton, vague liability negligence-of it is so and indefinite that cussion of for the fel- grasp meaning, upon phase do not low readily and are unable to servants of the case pass apparent on it. raised, but not for the reason that plaintiff ing twenty-ninth as- support- made error’s signment predicated solely upon is without merit. applicability assignments The nineteenth and twentieth of article and under They grouped. opinion, are authorities áre not considered be- cited in the we were They (a) germane assign- cause: our are not and are confined consideration of the position. improperly grouped; ment (b) to that are As was intimated opinion, in 6648, propositions, applicability as and as such are of article vague, rather readily and indefinite. article apparent, twenty-third complaint In province it is not within the again this signed court to made of court reverse the failure of the cases for errors not as- charge upon presented, its qualifications and not risk assumed unless nature, R. Plaintiff fundamental article their or of such char- present in this acter upon passed error seems to have had a desire to otherwise that same should be question by many assignments pos- assignments. without again We, therefore, sible. We hold expressly decline to sustain taken; having assignment by the error been invited. well provisions reason of the Assignments grouped. and 28 are and base the reversal They germane, originally that, are not and will not be con- assumed disregarding passing, however, article, sidered. said that the the defendant in error neverthe- the twen- less is liable under the of article ty-seventh passed upon by twenty-eighth assignments disposing is said what the eleventh. twenty-first assignment GREEN et al. v. GRAND UNITED ORDER proposition are without merit. OF ODD et FELLOWS al. twenty-sixth [17] The com (Court Appeals of Civil of Texas. Austin. plains limiting of the action of the court in May 24, 1911.) plaintiff counsel his error’s (§ 770*) to 1 hour and 16 minutes time. No reason Insurance Benefit In —Mutuai — Right Designate surance why apparent Benefi this was not than more ciary —“Benefit Certificate.” time, nothing sufficient and there is to in Leg. Acts 26th c. defines a fra- dicate that the limitation the flow of association, ternal benefit and section subds. 1, 23, requires oratory such harmful. associations make an must report, stating annual issued, the number of certificates therefore overruled. recognizing thus of such asso- thirty-second thirty-fourth assign- ciations to issue benefit certificates. Section provides payment ments relate to the evidence. 1 fits view further of death bene- families, heirs, shall be to the blood rela- grounds, reversal comment there- tives, wife, persons affianced husband or or to improper. on would be dependent upon the member at the time of his Reversed and remanded. death, classes that, should there be no one of the capable taking benefit, mentioned pass provided by it shall Rehearing. the laws of as- On presumed sociation. Held as it must be error, Legislature 'Defendant its motion for re- expression that the used the “bene- obligation fit certificate” as hearing, urges a written eleventh pay person therein named the amount should not have been sustained because there specified upon stipulat- the conditions therein allegation is no ed, duty and knew that it was the of the courts any to enforce coworkers Glover’s other than the such contracts unless restricted statute, and that it had been their universal language foreman, Phillips. peti- pay person custom to therein if he the benefit named satisfactory tion is not as clear and as it one of the classes belori£ed respect matter, named, act insured a law of descent and should be but is provision the last-mentioned names the classes from regarded to raise sufficient the issue. This beneficiary, select his and is not and the other assumed in contentions distribution, requiring- rehearing being regarded motion out as with- paid persons the benefit to be to such classes of merit, named; motion order is overruled. are designated where a member er as able his father and moth- reply [18] The filed beneficiaries, pay- the certificate rehearing, to the motion briefing states that after -by them, its terms to were entitled submission, benefit, the case and after its he to the the member left a wife though constituting “family.” and child he had to call this noticed failed court’s at Insurance, Note.—For to the fact that tention 1933, 1937; Gent. § 770.*] Liability Act, Employers’ Rev. (§ 774*) .applicable, 2. Insurance rather Stat. ar Benefit In —Mutual Beneficiary—Change. surance — 6640, since the accident ticle oc any statutory provision In the absence of April 21, stated in curred 1910.. effect, to of a member the father and mother purposely pretermitted

.opinion, any. of,a society designated dis- benefit topic Dig. Key-No. *For other cases'see same and section NUMBER in Dec. '& rh'dexes

Case Details

Case Name: Glover v. Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. Co.

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Feb 13, 1914

Citation: 163 S.W. 1063

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.