*1 496 Appellant’s two-pronged v. Employers’ Reciprocal; declara Associated Tex. instance, of his cause of in this 129; action 10 S.W.2d West Texas prescribe Renner, wherein he both so Utilities Co. Tex.Civ.App., v. 32 compensation under and 264, outside law S.W.2d grounds, reversed result; they accomplish Tex.Com.App., 451; such Mingus 53 S.W.2d alternative, Wadley, v. 551, 1084; were not even made Tex. dixit, ipse Reciprocal Franklin, hence his Oilmen’s declaring mere Ass’n v. employer both himself amenable S.W. 195. did not at require These conclusions an affirmance yet the same time leave them in the re of the trial judgment; court’s it will lation toward each other of owner and so ordered. invitee, upon premises; con Affirmed. trary, quoted paragraph these averments in having drunk the water PLEASANTS, J.,C. absent. the mine during working at other than mean— n employer, hours can presumably at least —that he drank it some, premises there, sort of connection with his work such during times the work had before actually ceased, begun, after it had perhaps during the lunch or recreation hours; ot situation would not make MINARDUS v. ZAPP. invitee law as he deems No. 8596. been, but would himself classifying effect ultimate Appeals Court Civil of Texas. Austin. course, being still Jan. 1938. employment Southern Surety Shook, Rehearing Co. Tex.Civ.App., v. Denied Jan. 425; Security S.W.2d Union Insurance Co. McClurkin, Tex.Civ.App., 35 S.W.2d
240; Indemnity Wright, Insurance Co. v. 438; Tex.Civ.App., 69 S.W.2d Texas Employers’ Insurance Association Har buck, 113; Tex.Civ.App., Con 73 S.W.2d Casualty Canales, tinental Co. v. Tex.Civ. 797; Wynn App., 100 S.W.2d v. Southern ; Surety 26 S.W.2d Employers’ Liability Corpo Assurance Light, Tex.Civ.App., ration v. 685; Malley Indemnity Co., v. Union Com.App., 12 S.W.2d Watts v. Con yCo., Tex.Com.App., 18 tinental Casualt pro this court While thinks the nunc tunc order of the accident board of February 12 of undertaking prior alter amend or final judgment appellant’s claim, of November was null and void because en- prior notice tered without to'the interested opportunity them affording heard, unnecessary it is deemed fur- feature, ther discuss that since what has already been said determines the merits appeal. support of In our holding further plea properly in abatement was sus-
tained, these authorities are cited: Griffith *2 pellee. Appellant agree- denied ment; made, if alleged it were because in violation of unenforceable control- law and rules and CCC, ling policy expressed. jury found therein made, judg- appel- accordingly rendered for
lee. 16, U.S.Code, Sections S8S to 590 of title note, 48 Stat. 16 U.S.C.A. 585 to 590 §§ authorized the establishment provided the President of promulgate rules United States should effective, regulations making the act which Department he did. The Labor men to be enlisted Agencies Bulletin No. 'Handbook Emergency Selecting Men for Conserva- Work, September appellee enlisted, pro- and under which vided in as follows: “Each man will clothing, in work camp, plus a minimum cash allowance per will allot most which he $30 * * * home. being primarily made from “Selection is unemployed physically unmarried men fit * * * ages of 18 between the dependents, and have who wish to who por- allot to these a substantial minimum cash allowance. tion of the $30 * * # “Dependents may dependents either example, a obligation. blood or For has been young man who and who for some unrelated family and is considered a member of the to contribute to its select- discretion eligible. ing agency be Moss, appel- LaGrange, Moss adequate man will allot “Each lant. Jopling, LaGrange, C. C.
lee. emergency conservation' work “Since measure, defeat money to men in BLAIR, Justice. pro- practice is therefore purpose. This sued to recover $364. hibited, and enrollees who receive alleged that he enlisted in the Civilian subject money from their allottees Corps, Conservation CCC, herein referred to as * * * discharge. agreed to make an selecting agency in its dis- “The per out of month month $22 $30 preference a man who cretion under- against man to allot wishes standing that he would hold amount. smaller allot a wishes trust and toit he camp; eligible for ap- “Only returned those are enrollment fr.om upon allotments to those who ap- refused to do demand of have made them, either back out actually dependent *** money. I return to obligation. blood don’t know how much. un- persons or to to trustees “Allotments ordinary case, appellant) (the “In an prohibited.” enrollee are known to the *3 ar- would to such an not be able make interpret eligibility The rules further rangement, permitted in cases but it was “why first reason selectees a and Zapp case.” kind similar to the from lists selection is made needy,un- Koenig testify follows: did in this case. dependents, as employed” with request Appellant appellee need is “Finally, sent the volume of $10-on when inadequate camp. in The bal- while- he was the CCC funds are great and relief by these need, proper to use ance of month allotment to the it seems subject-matter appellant some fami- to is the take care of cash allowances to free relief, setting thus of this receiving suit. lies now of other care funds for the these- relief the conclusion We have reached in need. appellant to agreement that with community there are in “If re money in and to the allotment trust from well voluntary enrollments to he returned it when turn the relief qualified men by the the CCC is unenforceable made from be above- in violation of the conform to the unemployed men who quoted provisions of law and rules herein.” stated eligibility requirements as controlling eligibility of regulations and unemployed unmarried an was camps. A con men selected for the CCC He man, had no made in viola tract where it is when he parents died years age. His statute, mak regulatory of a or rule a rear- and an uncle very child small a or it ing effective such where This years age. until he was part public policy, a or to where no rea- county, and Fayette uncle lived subject-mat agreement to use why he was not given to son part for an ter of the of it a prior to months some 3 allottee. For purpose. Ins. Co. American Natl. unlawful his home he made enlistment Tabor, 111 Tex. S.W. appellant’s farm. He appellant on with Drill v. Rhoades part of subsistence, but a his chores for ing 1036. Such S.W. Ap- picking cotton. paid for the time although is unenforceable a contract dependent relief nor was not by supported a consideration. Miller any manner. Clarence appellee in Babb, Tex.Com.App., county Fayette worker was case Schwake repay the very if the contract to doubtful appellee re- work, county in which money a con allotment to had rec- appellee and investigated He sided. illegality in If the test of sideration. for enlistment application ommended respect consideration is to administrator, who Koenig, in the CCC to to done as a consideration contracted be Concerning the application. approved the violating without the stat cannot be the al- appellant to return agreement of regulations making it ef ute or rules testi- money appellee: Schwake to lotment Boxberger, Tex. Featherston v. fective. Koenig’s office was said what fied as to present, as follows: parties were all agreement is’ violation up mat- brought Koenig Mr. “When prohibit making of the rules which the. boy to ter, had no one he stated “allotments to trustees.” was also n opin- Asked our to. make defining “obligation” rulé appli- case, stating that ion about the be, example, young dependents to “for boy lived orphan and had an cant was been man who has with unre- several for the last family and who is lated some if we didn’t think know to months. Wanted family a member of the advantageous to send that it contribute to its to the CCC to in the discretion of the select- seems, eligible.” ing be considered be- “There was undisputed evidence showed that (Zapp Minardus), to the two tween “obligation” were not keep lant and Minardus was effect that dependants lived with boy appellee. for 'the months, and a of the time got paid when he
.-which repayment service; him, paid for his he was merely regulated, his sub- prohibited, and' mainder of the time earned could by doing by complying chores. The have been done sistence subject- its or rules con- unlawful statute made an use -by matter, money, trolling authoriz- the selection men in the CCC the allotment camps, and to payment nondependent and under to a rule that repayment trustee, by requiring its contract would not have been invalid. reason Boxberger, Thus without Featherston v. selectees 255 more than found in would have been S.W. 998. No dependents; and the rules had statute or there- require al- public policy give discretionary defeated the under au- which would grant thority as to each selectee so allow agencies lotments *4 to re- selectee and such a relief to contract as is to be here dependents' They relief funds to such lease enforced to be made. did not au- making for the care of other thorize “use the the re- policy was are in need.” This that some contract knew sort of peated agen- authority in the rules for over over in the se- made. No exists camps. The selecting men for lecting agencies any cies of the man- to waive datory defeated the stat- statutes rules and regula- ute rules and controlling and the President’s selection men for the the tions, provide man will that “each clothing, and judgment of The the trial court is .camp, plus a minimum in a work judgment versed and rendered here most of appellant, nothing and that take which he will allot by his suit. home.” Reversed and rendered. equally fact guilty making illegal contract with Appellee’s Rehearing. Motion On appellee, permitted to retain rehearing On contends that ap- him and as between we holding repay erred in the contract pellee, right is not material here. by allottee was in violation of bene receive and. retain the President’s rules and set fits not before contract Septem in Bulletin No. out court, but is a matter for the federal 15, '1934, ber same was not evi rectify. settled government The rule is Appellant pleaded dence. some of unenforce that a contract of this sort applicable provisions of said bulletin as is not able in the state because it opinion; set out in our and when he offer upon, upon, rights binding confers no later revisions of the bul thereto; making and because the appellee objected, letin in evidence allot the unlawful contract to judicial held that it take court must no money in trust bulletins; and, hav notice of all promise -to consideration court held as a matter question the contract law that Co., supra; Seeligson Drilling Rhoades regula of sttch rules and Williamson, Am. & Lewis appears tions. Since the court Thomas, Rep. Scroggins v. Furst & fully construed the bulle Tex.Civ.App., 9 writ ref. tin, formally that it was the fact ad any allege prove Nor in evidence material. mitted would authorize his selection facts which presented with here record. generally held that state courts money- him under the judicial knowledge proclama must take community “if there are not President effective tions of the voluntary qualified enrollments well statute; and of regula rules and federal men on the relief' federal boards tions of and commissions. may be made from other unem- Ray, Texas Law Evi McCormick dence, ployed conform eligibility men who p. § requirements as stated herein.” The motion will be overruled. appellee allege prove Nor did to be done under Overruled.