*1 420 LESLIE, is a appeal This a suit to recover on appellant’s J. bond. National payee in a by Sylvester App. in Carper, benefit held Kidd certificate 28 Tex. Civ. of Cleburne v. Bank 188; Knights Pythias (colored). lodge Woeltz, a of The de- 93 Tex. 334, v. Woeltz S. W. 67 Kidd, Silliman, error, plaintiff here- 35; 92 fendant in Lovenia 548, Anderson v. 57 S. W. Sylvester alleged in, Coop, 576; of that she was the wife 560, v. Lauchheimer W. Tex. 50 S. beneficiary 1098; death, 1061, of his the S. Kidd at the time 386, 90 W. 89 W. S. Tex. 99 Western White, policy, in insurance entitled to named and 62 Tex. Civ. the v. Bank National proceeds general 828; de- There was a 374, Tolar et the nial thereof. App. v. Stewart 131 S. W. Pumph by lodge, plaintiff 274; in error. App.) W. App.) the defendant (Tex. 250 S. Civ. al. rey judgment W. in favor (Tex. S. After 270 trial was rendered Civ. a v. Hunter App.) therein,. Kidd, (Tex. plaintiff for the Civ. the Lovenia 237; Letwin of Co. Absolene v. ju de- The is without claimed. of the insurance This court amount fendant 288. 284 S. W. risdiction par- brings alleged The errors. to this court. error the to consider assignments. appellant’s to in lower court. referred as the ties will be all of overrule We grows the lawsuit judgment facts out of which The is affirmed. The Kidd, Sylvester Lovenia Kidd married are: payable policy, her to insurance an took out 1924, 17, wife, October her divorced as his 27,1924, and October Roberts Mattie married 1924, having 31, to failed October died on change beneficiary policy. of Proof in the the Kidd, by but the Lovenia death was submitted of LODGE, KNIGHTS COLORED GRAND cer- Lodge, (No. 435.) benefit in PYTHIAS, which the Blue Ribbon KIDD. v. because, payment held, refused was tificate Appeals Eastland. of Texas. of Civil Court investigation, sec- upon to the it was disclosed 28, Sept. 1928. Sylvester retary that rank the endowment of procured of divorce decree the Kidd had 9, Rehearing 1928. Nov. ’ Denied Sylvester Kidd Mattie and Kidd aforesaid. were wife at together living and as husband proceeds death, the of the and the time of his policy paid her. to were eighty- courts, the are two district There ninety-first, eighth in Eastland coun- and the juris- ty, having and concurrent civil criminal authority judge, diction, discretion, in his in with either vacation, in term in either time or any to transfer civil to the other of case said by his courts order entered on the minutes of court, or or in minutes orders made cham- made, bers. Where are it such orders is the duty certify copy of the clerk to and to the same, together with all orders made in the case, copies among and file certified the such papers transferred, of the case thus and it is duty made to the further of the clerk docket such cause in the court to which it shall be transferred, and, entered, when so the court to it shall have jurisdiction which been transferred shall orig- have like as therein in cases inally brought in The said court. same provides statute that the of of district clerk county shall of Eastland be the clerk each courts, said ternately and that he shall file all suits al- - ninety eighty-eighth in said and 199, first art. courts. R. district subd. 88. S. Sylvester petition for When Kidd’s divorce presented filing, Septem- the for was clerk to George 11,1924, ber was addressed to Hon. it Davenport, judge court, L. of said and con- necessary allegations material tained all the judgment. it the of a The case to make was tried basis ninety-first Harry Brelsford, judge H. Brelsford and said of P. both before the plaintiff Eastland, appears court, for in error. it that

. of district but the clerk petition, McCarty, Eastland, receiving court, Milburn of for defend- of on the said placed papers pertaining in ant error. and it the other

421 jacket upon was, therefore, fol- was in which the not authorized to thereto a render the petition support lowing decree without a that would indorsement: proposition it. As an correct, may of abstract this is law “No. 11114. following as seen be from the County, Court, 88th Eastland “In District Bros., authorities: Watson v. Miller Tex. 69 Texas. 175, 680; Kentucky Corp. S.5 W. Oil v. Mc Kidd,” “Sylvester (Tex. 972; Kidd App.) v. Lovenia Candless W. R. 300 S. Civ. S. art. 1971. n —and entry eighty-eighth dis- in the made an upon It is that the admitted the attack as follows: file trict court’s docket judgment purely in divorce is the case collat eral, Kidd, “Sylvester defendant, binding and' that Lovenia Kidd Kidd. the Lovenia v. escape pro seeks to its in effect this “No. 11114. Suit Divorce. fo.r ceeding county in the court at law of East- attorneys: Dodson.” Judkins & “Plaintiff’s county by relying upon land agreed or evidence speci- agreed in of facts it is facts detailed. In In statement hereinbefore the the ninety-first stant ease the district had said cause that there court reference to fled with potential jurisdiction try entry of of to that suit. civil either said divorce is on docket no the separate paragraph judgment courts, has its The first of therein that court the and each jurisdic agreed discloses tion appears that: that said court had active further file dockets. It is person defendant, of in that it of the the en- to never been suit was shown have “Said duly pro “she of waived service had ninety-first in the file of the court tered and docket judg appearance.” cess and ment in that taining her entered The no ever entered trans- order was that eighty-eighth regular ferring face, the is its said suit from cause on con district ninety-first court.” court the district invalidity, to of im no evidence and is pregnable against as a The collateral attack. appears circumstances, it these that Under judgment recitals of that correctness of the she will ninety- hearing in for the came on the cause deny man not heard in the now be to judgment en- and a was district court first attempted. thereby, ner is She bound until Syl- 17, 1&24,granting October therein tered vester Kidd a decree Kidd. The' in the relieved from the force and effect of that of from divorce Lovenia judgment in a direct for attack instituted judgment in usual form and is the purpose, by presumption that such waiver and and the is that part first thereof recites: entry appearance of she con upon jurisdiction upon this “Be it remembered that the 17th sented to confer the active day October, 1924, be came on to of this cause ninety-first et district court. Marx al. v. Hei appeared person by plaintiff and in heard and Bros., (writ refused); denheimer 63 Tex. 304 trial, attorney ready the and for but announced Buyers’ Hosmer et al. v. New York et Ass’n defendant, although she had duly waived serv- (Tex. App.) al. Civ. 258 W. S. 853. appearam.ce process and entered her here- ice of foregoing not, reasons, For the in, all default.” came but in else made we the believe judgment of the trial court should re- be defendant, Kidd, The Lovenia concedes versed, and, fully the since facts are judgment devel- that, if said decree of is and divorce valid oped and authorize a in favor of binding, beneficiary she un- could not be the plaintiff, judgment the will here be rendered policy on, der the had sued would for she have in its favor. so It is ordered. Syl- interest in life of no insurable the death, since, vester Kidd at the date of his Rehearing. On upon granting divorce, the of a a wife’s insur- ceases, able her interest in husband’s life defendant in The motion for error’s a re- she, by thereof, hearing carefully and reason to a by ceases be ben- has been considered this naming eficiary policy under a her as such. opinion We are still of court. the the that Whiteselle Mutual In- Sylvester Northwestern v. Life record in divorce case the of Kidd (Tex. App.) (as presented upon Co. surance Com. S. 221 W. 575. v. Lovenia Kidd the trial However, affirmatively case) of the contention the defend of instant the does not ant in error in anything judg-' the instant case is that the would show that render the ninety-first juris would, district court was without in ment the divorce case void. It judgment granting subject to therefore, diction divorce, the render said not be to the collateral at- petition for reason the that no for di being tack here made on it. court, vorce in was ever' filed that and that it be motion The will overruled.