*1 962 Fields, Tex.Civ.App., Ins. 26 Co. v. S.W. 280. CO. LAWSON.
SOUTHLAND LIFE INS. v. Appellant’s rehearing motion is over- for No. 2123. ruled. Appeals Waco. of Texas. Court of Civil 26, Oct. 1939. GEORGE, J., part in the con- took no disposition sideration and of this motion.
NEWSOM v. FIKES. No. 13913. Appeals Court of Civil of Texas. Fort Worth. July 11, 1941. Rehearing Sept. 12, Denied 1941. Seay, Malone, Lipscomb, & of White Atwood, Ennis, Dallas, and Lewis Felix of Dallas, Carpenter, appellant. of for T. Cusack, Dallas, appellee. for Frank of ALEXANDER, Justice. original opinion we said: In our “On company, full each occasion the with facts, accepted had knowledge of all the receipt premium a there-
the and forwarded directly to either the insured or for to delivery him.” Cowart for to our attention the has called Counsel to receipts sent all these were di- fact that of Consequently, rectly to the insured. the changed so as to foregoing is sentence company, read: each occasion the “On facts, knowledge all had
with full of the accepted premium a re- and forwarded the directly to insured.” ceipt therefor the 301, S.W.2d 302.] [132 appellant think The seems to that we once held that a custom established have subsequently changed by agree- be cannot parties. was not our in- ment of the It Certainly, so hold. before' a tention to by party, may it is acted on either custom agreement. by In the changed mutual be however, bar, beneficiary the ten- case at premium to Cowart before re- dered the change of a to the ceipt of notice' desire Consequently, we held the that custom. customary the usual and made at tender prevent to a was sufficient forfeiture.
place this connection Manhattan Life in See