*1 869 with the breast in himself insured shoot McKINNEY. HARNDEN v. Controlling is not fact the but the shotgun, question on the of self-destruction. No. 9882. of Lodge O. Supreme “In Kornfeld v. Appeals Court of Civil of Texas. 604, was P., the Mo.App. suit M. 72 Antonio. San pro- which certificate
brought a benefit on 12, Nov. 1936. sui- committed insured if the vided that insurance con- years the three cide within Rehearing 7, April 1937. Denied three- this Within tract be void. should period after an alterca- year insured the ran into closed party tion another a with himself, nobody but shot toilet room and himself, him, him, shoot could see saw or body, door, but, his- dead opening the on side, h'is were found pistol with at the the court Upon trial in lower a therein. permitted to recov- were the beneficiaries court, opinion in an er, appeal but this on Bland, judgment the of by Judge reversed holding that the outright, the lower court strong was so it was a suicide evidence that submitting in erred that trial court the jury.” the plaintiff’s case to Critz, the Judge speaking for Commis Fidelity Life Appeals in United sion of Adair, pre supra, discussed Ins. the Co. v. suicide, sumption against and in of law judgment the of the that case affirmed Ap of of the Court Civil lower court and deceased not peals, finding that the did however, suicide; in reaching that commit conclusion, reviewing after certain im cases, said: portant Judge Critz “An ex these of all of above-cited cases amination Buró Case Ben. will that the show [Home (Tex.Civ.App.) (2d) 10 Ass’n v. Buro S.W. rendered, in and the others was not 188] letters or the left some made some deceased coupled with statement the other which proved beyond any suicide facts in the case doubt.” reasonable In at bar the deceased left a the case note, Critz, words of Judge use the to “coupled
which with the other facts in the beyond any proved case suicide reasonable Cox, Beeville, Alex Browne, F. of and Hal doubt.” Antonio, appellant. of San for judgment of It follows that the the lower Stroud, & Wade and Wade L. D. all of judgment reversed and court should be Beeville, appellee. for . appellant, in favor of here rendered and it accordingly is so ordered. MURRAY, Justice. and Reversed rendered. McKinney L. A. instituted this suit Rehearing. recover, On H. H. against seeking Harnden to among things, other the reasonable cash receiving testimony After the of Claude personal property alleged of certain value that, opinion, in his Goldsmith “Effie- shot belonged McKinney have to have to to and herself,” the court afterwards excluded by converted Harnden. been statement; that with this correction of the appellee’s original opinion, jury upon their motion The trial was to a and for re- judgment hearing judge is the trial rendered overruled. verdict *2 870 “The is: Appellant’s assignment third Harnden against McKinney’s in and favor jury the submitting erred in not to $688.15, of court offset an in the of less sum 4, by the de- requested Special No. has Issue $7.50, Harnden judgment from which fendant, evidence in the because there was prosecuted appeal. this case converted the that defendant had not building Harnden, a Appellant, owned by personal plaintiff alleged property of as Skidmore, county, Tex. city in Bee the of him.” con- lease and He entered into a written The evi- premises assignment. We overrule this building and ditional sale this of whereby McKinney, undisputed dence that Harnden took was appellee, A. L. with appel- building charge building at the rate the and locked McKinney the of rented building month, option personal property up the with an lee’s in per together $45 of appellee applied give buy payments rental and afterwards refused to have all to and purchase key jury lease part price. building. The the the The found as of the to a rent, only of re- gave right Harnden the that there and $7.50 contract due as was any rent entry appellant installment of make formal de- in the event that did not being pay- making promptly paid, the rent mand for the before a re-en- was not rent monthly. try only taking charge and of the build- able not ing, property appellee. the These but of McKinney to one subleased McMahon justify finding facts would the court in year. period of one Hamer for a and one property by that the had been converted shows, jury and the so The evidence appellant. requested The issue would have Harnden, found, appellant, went to that' called rather than for conclusion of law a same, in- building charge of the and took properly finding a of fact and same was property 'great personal deal of cluding a refused. McKinney, locking the build- to belonging Accordingly, judgment the will be affirm- key, there retaining the when ing up and ed. only balance of due to him was a $7.50 Rehearing. On Motion for no demand Harnden made on the rent. McKinney of rent be- this amount of for Appellant, in his motion for re building and taking possession of the fore hearing, question insists that the con of McKinney. property of The personal the personal property the version of should property personal to be jury the found jury. have been submitted to the We over $688.15. worth undisputed in rule this contention. It is assignment error Appellant’s first of reads appellant up the that locked the record follows: as containing appellee’s property; the building appellant authority that had no to seize rendering judg- in court erred not “The property; this that when return asked to (appellant here)
ment for the defendant in property appellee he declin personal the to cause, because there no verdict on this was McKinney testified that he de ed to do so. judgment against a him.” which to base property that the and Harnden manded The assignment. this We overrule give it him. Harnden refused to to When jury support the sufficient to verdict of was questioned this was with reference to mat implied findings if judgment, and were the ter, testimony: gave following he the necessary, they presumed will be have to Well, anyway, Malone “Q. Sid demanded by rendering judg the in made court been you you property that of return the to Mc- Ormsby Ratcliffe, verdict. v. ment on the Kinney, McKinney A. did.” 242, didn’t he? S.W.(2d) 1 1084. 117 Tex. undisputed evidence shows a con- This Appellant’s assignment second is: property by appellant, of and version the rendering judg in “The court erred not that he it case, the fact afterwards tendered in ment for the defendant this be McKinney would not be sufficient undisputed back to the shows that cause evidence being from com- prevent to the conversion wrongs not defendant had committed the property plete, he took the and re- by plaintiff’s (appellee here) peti when alleged it owner. Hender- to surrender to its fused tion.” Beggs, (Tex.Civ.App.) son 207 v. S.W. assignment. con- We overrule this We 565. to show clude the evidence was sufficient Appellant’s rehearing for wrongs motion will guilty that Harnden was of the alleged. overruled. be