*1 DUNKLIN, Chief Justice. INS. CO. v. SOUTHWESTERN LIFE The Southwestern Insurance BROOKS. appealed judgment has favor Brooks, Eva Mrs. on a life insurance husband, issued to her William

Court of Civil Brooks, who died on October 1934. 1935. only were, findings jury Rehearing Denied Jan. first, suicide; the insured committed and, second, that sum $350 reasonable fee for attorneys for prosecuting suit; $1,475.46, favor for being the aggregate of the face of the interest, attorneys’ fees and statutory penalty $120; for all of plaintiff sued. sued on was issued at its home office in Dallas, Tex., and was executed president “as of the fifteenth of Octo- ber, 1933,” but an bears indorsement showing registered ap- proved by Daniel, R. L. state commissioner, ance Austin, Tex., at 1933, which was more prior one month date. Brooks, William Makie Falls, Tex., sided Wichita at the date of its issuance. embodied these “This travel, is unrestricted as to occupation residence and of the Insured and is Incontestable after the first nonpayment premiums. n n $ the Insured shall die self-de- insane, struction while sane or within one from the date the amount payable under this shall be the sum received * * *

premiums thereon, and no more. policy and “This the written print- therefor, contained in two parts, constitute the entire contract between copy thereto. A of the applica- * * * attached hereto. hereby granted “The insurance is term policy year, insurance for the first limited life insurance thereafter for the first treated as a year’s term insurance.” premium specified pol- The annual Hamilton, Lipscomb Wood, of Dal- $19.72, advance, icy payable in but (cid:127) las, company agreed a rider attached the Cox, for appellee. per of Wichita P. B. month. *2 1060 wise, by premium will be application made listed for Falls, employee’s pay. was dated at Wichita deduction from the 1933, 31, truly, August following very his “Yours Department.” “Group signature thereto was the recommendation Polhemus, agent signed the risk J. in was referred to that letter insur- who solicited the and it was delivered inclosed therewith application these ance. The embodied Polhemus to William Brooks on September 14, 1933, him. myself agree, "I in 1933, 31, Brooks made a writ- August On any every person or claim who shall have request Refining ten to the Panhandle Com- any issued in conse- interest salary pany his each month to deduct from quence follows: as the same and forward Company shall incur no lia- “(1) The monthly company his fendant to cover or bility upon of this account policy; due on his consequence thereof policy issued for the de- agreed trial counsel actually be deliver- until such shall Company Refining accept- fendant that the my accepted during me ed me and payments request and made health, good and the first life time and .insurance in accordance with thereon shall be request. by. de- agent; but when so authorized 3, Rev.Civ.St., 4733, reads: Article subd. relate shall livered “Any may policy promis- issue a date, back to its the full benefit in ing a less than benefit appli- (2) with that date. This shall case of death of the his 2, each cation, of Parts 1 consisting own hand.” me, there- issued The defense of suicide within one contract; the entire constitute on shall * * .from the urged date of the * year from the (3) If within one the answer to based on that I any policy issued hereon date of statutory provision. is also insisted self-destruction, insane, the sane or the contract of insurance un payable under such amount ambiguous in terms and therefore its actually received the Com- the sum legal effect could not be thereon, no more.” pany many varied extraneous evidence. And in his for insur- decisions parol are cited to show that ance, William Malcie Brooks was work- applies stipulations evidence rule in a Panhandle Refining in contract that it will become effective from salary. Falls Joseph Ogden Wichita are, its date. Some. of those authorities Polhemus, agent of the defendant who Mutual Packing Life Ins. Co. v. Hurni application, also took the resided Wichi- Co., 90, 167, 263 44 U.S. S.Ct. 68 L.Ed. ta Falls. 235, Court; Supreme 31 A.L.R. 13, 1933, defendant Bement Locomotive & v. Trenton Machine following addressed the 513; Co., N.J.Law, Manufacturing 32 Polhemus, agent O. at Wichita J. Milam, Ky. Meridian Life Ins. Co. v. Falls: L.R.A.1917B, Kurth Polhemus, v. National Life Accident Ins. Co. Waggoner “Mr. O. Bob 338; Reynolds (2d) Bldg., Civ.App.) 79 S.W. Wichita McMan regret very “Dear Oil & Gas Co. Sir: We much that we 778; Bergholm (2d) 11 S.W. v. Peoria Life unable to issue the are enclosed Co., plan applied for, 52 S.Ct. on the U.S. but trust #525847 you L.Ed. Life Ins. will be successful Southern delivering Cherry Protection, it on the Economic S.W. without 160, p. 274, Disability Indemnity. Also 10 Benefits or Double § Tex.Jur. quote “Frankly, we as follows: we believe it be to certain, applicants advantage the written contract is clear and express must taken to their inten ance. issued, written, as no “If this as will be enforced place a memorandum at matter bottom this their actual intention what immediately; return it letter and other- have been.” clusion trial as court did not err in parol evidence favor, imports, evidence and the designation one of to be to the the construction exclusion of the of suicide governing not one given defense the mean within contract when date a written *3 policy. disclosed of the parties thereto is believe of the We this conclusion fully supported general principles is terms. governing in such contracts and the fol rule is that equally An well-settled lowing Life Standard decisions: Jefferson instruments written parts all different of Myers Ins. Co. v. of a contract part parcel a constituting 216; Myers S.W. Standard Jefferson arriving to in looked as a whole be of the Life Ins. Co. 271 S.W. parties. at the intention Life Ins. Co. v. Standard Jefferson expressly insurance policy of Baker (Tex.Civ.App.) (writ S.W. therefor stipulates that the ; error refused) of American National insurance, of part of contract the Thompson (Tex.Civ.App.) 186 S. embodied in stipulation was same the f ; (writ refused) W. 254 o error be no doubt application. There can the Life Ins. Co. v. Alcorn Southern Civ.App.) a contract of policy took effect as that the (writ of error S.W. September when it insurance on refused); American National Ins. Co. v. the insured

was delivered Blysard (Tex.Civ.App.) 207 S.W. required payment pre of the followed Landrigan v. Life Ins. Co. Missouri State date. That from that miums for one being (Mo.App.) 1042. And cited cases true, that the it cannot be denied opinions. those the “First beginning on that date was year policy assignments Accordingly, of error all are^ year” of the within the overruled, of the trial the that it would be provisions in is affirmed. court year, after “incontestable Rehearing. premiums.” Motion for non-payment Group written Depart- The letter opin original in our statement ment of the insurance to Polhe- written defendant’s that the letter ion instructing him mus to deliver the -Polhemus, Group Department agent, insured, explicitly stating to “it will to deliver the en instructing him be in force from the date it is delivered insured, to the contained therewith closed accepted by applicant,” to and was de- “it the statement that will force along livered to the insured and with the is from the date it delivered and ac to understanding; with that that cepted applicant,” by the was an error. letter was admissible to show the inten- embody statement, letter did not that tion of the insurer as to the date of the but, controversy, as was shown without policy, necessarily did it not contra- slip statement was embodied in that testimony whereof, dict the words: “In to which delivered the Southwestern Life Insurance Polhemus, along with the policy, and ac has caused this in its cepted by at the same time. Secretary its President and its stipulation Hence that had the same force countersigned and to be a Regis- effect as if it had been included Dallas, Texas, trar at as of fifteenth letter instruction Polhemus author October, 1933,” signature over the izing policy. him deliver the president of the of the thereto. quoted para- the fourth language necessarily Such indefinite policy, the graph of the is term “first policy, as to the date of the and that un- employed. And in year” applica- certainty expressly removed policy, expressly which ' accompanying insurance, of the contract of delivery policy. of the provided that a further universal delivery until effective become first any ambiguity in a con the com- insurance, tract is drafted provision, further pany. The “but when will be resolved in delivered provi favor of the if of its date, and back to late first sions will warrant such a construction. (italics begin with date” delivery manifestly of the definitely ours), refers to The amount insurance was date; but that stipulated subsequently it is in the our con Worth, for immediately vin H. Brown, Jr., of Fort stipulation all provision and the appellees. it, in connection preceding clearly Polhemus, show letter to fendant’s contract intended MARTIN, Justice. become effective on Appellees claiming as instituted first when was delivered grand- devisees under will of their acceptance assign- paid by defendant’s father, H. who died wages insured as ment of of the county, Tex., Howard subse- of the he under- will under the terms of which took months, on the subse- quent quent dispose say To date of October *4 wife, estate Sparenberg. and his of himself Johanna reasonably least, the contract es- bequeathed the entire It an intention evidencing construed as life, three tate to her for remainder to his period one-year suicide parties that children, Sparenberg, George H. Elizabeth when the con- the date should Schelb, and Charles share and than on the rather tract became effective alike, any of providing share that if 15, 1933, as subsequent date of October issue, said such leaving children by appellant, and that construc- insisted children alike in the estate. should share indulged in favor should be three, alleged Char- It was that one of the than the strict construc- les, issue; the sur- died without and that tion invoked wife, viving Johanna, her rehearing is overruled. motion for under rather 'than claim estate the will It the estate. her interest in alleged with- the son Charles died having out married and with no issue. George alleged died also son mother, Johanna, before the leaving death sons, plaintiffs who are the appellees here and in this court. mother, Johanna, alleged It is al. et et al. SPARENBERG SCHELB years age eighty-nine at the advanced became an inmate in home of her Schelb, daughter, Elizabeth and her hus- Fort of Civil Court band, Schelb, Worth, Fort Worth. up after this time and the time and of death, charged her that Schelb wife, through fraud and exercise of influence, procured aged undue woman money, large some of sums property which was invested charged Sparen- It was that Johanna year 1933, will, berg died by the terms of which she left the bulk property to her Elizabeth Schelb independent executrix of es- her tate; being that said will was contested county county court of Tarrant pending still the administration is said county plaintiffs prayed court. The for Schelbs, accounting parti- for an tion, fixing declaring a decree property trust in their favor a situated Brewster, Simpson, Leo B. Marvin county, prayed in Tarrant Worth, Brewster, all of Fort Harris charge receiver take appellants. estate, temporary injunction McMahon, prevent Cantey, Hanger selling A. to in the defendants from . Gillis Brown, any way encumbering pend- Mar- the estate M. Hendricks Johnson,