the contract. lation him under the divided fore to est the title as the decisions above cited has right Breen’s in the other any fine distinctions here to define whether transaction is not up the title to the entire 160 aci-es. The ing the trust structive, the 60 acres? verse title to extent Brown, tween free from acres, could still title if he so desired. We are not concerned same from Kern to Morris. The answer adverse therefore overruled. did grouped. what teenth, demurrers and fied in ney Breen that the one torney, Coffinet al. terminated the relations Whatever Morris Appellant And the seventeenth findWe The perfecting Brown Breen and only got submitting may appear. fact compromised,or suit, by an interest only question client which Morris facts of this grounds. what effect, to further reason. to the title of the trust.” Such a but title, himself and thing effect the reason of his connection suit answer is assuming and fifteenth title, interest matter what title termination Brown the record title resulting, relationship what are no error complained of in Brown prosecute consideration benefit of cleared Brown’s sixteenth his client is further his there is also Brown’s in no wise settled then claim trust Gillett, temptation asserts that controversy .clearing interest in Brown’s interest? pursue for the same, deed Brown had might that, case, is: Did Morris therefore in Morehead by any person party to be sustained on Brown, submitting the facts as got acquiring in settled relationship urges interest, assignments. They his is that purchase from Kern shows that Morris the suit claim, jury overruling appellant’s are overruled express. purpose rights the court was under land, balance of the 160 special do towards recover- forbidden, because, client as his inter- (Breen’s) consideration was for that he necessity land the title to confidence has re- existing that, thereby taking up plaintiff to be unfaithful up, remedy thirteenth, a one-third un- sons say, prosecute eighteenth, with that case.” title of an interest of Morehead opposition inures there- then dismiss 1. Insurance ©=>769 —Fraternal land of the former can existing took to the sider sufficient. position relation to fidelity “it trust obtain an claim took title reason of was con- is that the deed to draw to clear of fraternal insurance Brown’s him, no wise interest claimed acquire attorney an ad- findings Brow^i places attor- justi- suits was; four- be- be- to persons to 769.] v. Insurance ©=>771 —Fraternal that not order the art. fourth WRIGHT et al. inal and the answers tional findings The motion for jury tion has been made in the use firms the view client existed between Morris and We should have used interest beginning, cause affirmed. finding by dict for Brown for an bound. the conditions case, land the Breen, Gillett, oughly cognizant, the counsel must tle of his tive.” — Within In A WARTHALL, J„ HARPER, The The constitution of Under Vernon’s 4832, permitting findings dependent Beneficiaries Beneficiaries careful consideration of the opinion suits provided that response acquired Brown’s interest findings assignments issues submitted 1914. On of fact in this in 60 acres.” There Colored, fact client, word is so amended as C. adverse title to Appeals Texas. Eourth degree. jury Jan. of fact are relationship stated contained of which Morris rehearing legal the thereto, prosecuted by “verdict” was et al. wherever it 1937,-1938; *1 necessarily jury the beneficiaries should be Brown, — 13, 1915.) blood relatives within the did GRAND properly Kern, certificates, In properly special issues, Relatives Degree. “Legal “judgment.” eases, in the latter’s favor. is one-third original opinion, undivided overruled, and from his and the additional fraternal Aim. denied. is overruled. there was because the some beneficiaries, pro- original opinion. sit appellant, Rehearing, which he was LODGE K. the trial court rendered as beneficiaries clear which we con- children, or, found goes. follow the peculiar Representa- Austin. Oct. in this opinion, inadvertent. motion one more Morris Insurance Insurance a was thor- make the insurance up one-third simply contract, Brown, Correc- a In Blood addi- facts Kern “ver- orig- fall- ©=> P., ti- other eases ©=AFor *2 271 K. GRAND LODGE P. WRIGHT minors, Johnson, Wright, Geo. Blanch of he could while named. Held classes Anderson, against and G. Lucile Lodge usually is under- term Knights Pythias, Colored, of administrators, it executors or stood refer to cover to which it is claimed elastic, and the nieces includes and separated from his wife. said of a minors were entitled reason their member who is other [Ed. Note.—For named in a certificate the beneficiaries <@=771. 1937; of insurance issued Andrew Mat- Phrases, definitions, see and For Words other thews, uncle, deceased, had their who now Representative.] Series, Legal and First Second paid thereon, all with all dues and —<@=35 Interpleader Attorney’s 3. Fee regulations the rules and of said order. Right to. alleged Georgia was Johnson Matthews proceeds certifi- of an insurance claiming and were W. Erskine Williams several, and it is doubtful cate are claimed money paid entitled, insurer, policy, who who is some interest they said for which reason parties to into court and were also made defendants. Grand for is entitled to reimbursement Lodge answered, admitting it owed expended. court, asking the which it tendered into Interpleader, other [Ed. Note.—For <@=35.] 70; belonged, court to determine to whom it and § praying for costs and $100 <@=35 AT- 4. INTERPLEADER —PROCEEDINGS Georgia The defendant Fee. insurer, Where a fraternal surviving she answered the court, money court, paid and into Matthews, deceased, said and Andrew prayed belonged, whom entitled, by thereof, that she reason filed a bill and its thereafter $500, asserting appellants, the claimants to in the interplead, recover circuit the insurer to an nephew the nieces of her hus- were and for allowance bill in the band, not, the constitution of dismissed where it was circuit jurisdiction. be beneficiaries under said for want of replied appellants Interpleader, To at that and at time other Note.—For 76; Dig. <©=35.] issued, § time said certificate was of the Matthews, and Andrew Georgia Matthews, Johnson were and Ebbob 5. <©=3173—Presentation separated, and had been so and op op Below— Review in Coubt Grounds years, for about seven and un- Necessity. insurer admitted its lia- Where defendant der the of said order were bility paid amount of the certificate into entitled to be named as beneficiaries under said having accepted appeal time it could not on Williams, Erskine while liability, and appear service, failed ficiary was not entitled the full amount into pleadings, court. file and the case was dismiss- There to him. trial before the ed as Error, 1079-1089, 1091-1093, jury, resulting in a court without ] <©=173. Georgia Matthews, favor Johnson in which peal. Ebbob ap- <©=1116 —Review—De- prosecuted this termination. con- Where counsel defendant insurer necessary principal question determination of sented to the their counsel though court’s fee, the court will allow a termined is whether were be no before instead named as beneficiaries in said entitled to be remanding the cause. dependent upon given to the constitution struction 4412; Dec. <©= Grqnd Lodge. ap- 1116.] The facts show that said pellants nephew are the nieces Court; County McLennan Matthews, deceased, .to Denton, N. Geo. issued, were certificate not de- Robertson, as next friend John upon pendent neither was he George Wright and depend- nor was he himself Knights Pythias, Colored, Grand or institution for ent port, Georgia impleaded one was and no From a lat- and another. support. issued, date 27, 1910, At the appeals, ter, plaintiff ren- wit, the time of dered. Georgia death, Johnson Stanford, Taylor living Forrester and J. A. apart, & appellant. Williamson, Waco, J. D. years. They about and had seven appellee Waco, K. P. Grand Andrew Mat- Waco, appellee Georgia Taylor, deceased, thews, Neff child or children left no Johnson. one. following parts [1,2] of the constitu brought ap- RICE, Grand were introduced in This suit Robertson, In the last clause of section pellant, for evidence. as next John friend Digests and Indexes in all other oases
<@=:>For 173 chapter object is tificate as to who shall be following: subject.” conclusive on that necessary But to determine which, on “To create fund proof satisfactory mem- applied of the death of whether this rule should *3 requirements ber has all the case, “legal phrase is for while true that the person order,.there to shall be the the persons ordinarily is membership policy of or named in the strued refer beneficiary to executors or termed) administra- (which bene- is or here as beneficiary yet shall tors, or beneficiaries ficiaries. The that: representatives legal be the the determining’ meaning “In scope the persons dependent upon or the ‘issue,’ the words ‘children’ and ‘heirs’ and beneficiary port. beneficiaries names of or or the name ‘devisees,’ ‘legal representatives’ and ‘es- every policy is- shall be written in tate,’ as those terms are used in the member’s sued.” designation beneficiaries, statutes, or in or society, pur- the charter or laws of the 4: Section pose determining beneficiaries, the courts adopt wife, construction, “A liberal rule of so as to ef- may designate parties fectuate the or more intent some one and the benevo- objects beneficiary, society.” pro- lent sons other beneficiary so Applying ease, this rule in the instant we children, children, child or the wife shall be his representa- conclude that the term if and he be be. such If there be child or aged designate sufficiently infirm, may comprehensive tives” is or as em- person persons upon beneficiary or should nephews brace the nieces of the deceas- aged depends support; not be ed. We do not think that the under the only permitted or infirm he be to name will facts, was entitled to the fund. She was beneficiaries, as other than his article; ing separate husband, ficiaries 1 of named in section from the persons order named to therein gave privilege selecting him pendent upon support.” beneficiary some other under the constitution Say (article les’ it, Our statute Vernon's and he saw fit to exercise subject Stat.) persons Tex. of fraternal and we think that named were eligible, not forbid benefit societies does and that below nephews but, holding they as to be named that were not. permits, among [3, rela- on the part 4] It is also contended on the appellants ney’s tives within the fourth be blood that the award of $100 as attor such, include as which would is fees excessive. we While think it if, facts, true, authority fall them. So within is of Nixon v. N. Co., Y. the class named constitution of Life Ins. 100 Tex. 98 S. W. lodge, as outlined we think 99 S. where there is clearly to be named beneficiaries a contest over and as it is doubtful who en fund, right employ titled has the represent there, pay then, anything counsel to court, Is the constitution the same into pray the court that excludes them named as belong, whom titled think, The first it should beneficiaries? section thereof which it is en costs, four names classes from whom the fees and distinct still we beneficiary, in the fur- instant insured ther select al fee specifies lowed is “name names of excessive. is true that counsel charged reasonable; or beneficiaries states that but shall be written the fee policy every issued.” As embraces services for a suit and not divorced at the district court to the contend parties policy time the thews, to Andrew Mat- which was dis legal right jurisdiction. This, missed think, had or want persons some one more other than his should not be considered in determin therein, provided, lodge. expense said wife his beneficiaries the fee allowed the This’ course, unnecessary, such or beneficia- was since the district court had jurisdiction; so ries wife should be to the exclusion of his no but we think the allowance child if there for should limited be to serv such; performed present in the event there was ices As here, the case he was not as evidence to what amount would no one be reasonable for such service in the dependent upon him, and no one was we conclude that the permitted reversed, then he was to name his bene- trial court with instruc appel other than wife some ficiaries the class tions to render in favor of outlined, named section 1 above said Grand lants therein This and in the order amount of n?imed. true, proceed if his nieces be re- and court legal garded then hear determine what would attorney’s fee, to name them as his beneficiaries and also- general rule, in said “As when a direct gia Geor certificate issues from a soci- so- benefit benefit the court costs designation ety adjudged on the cer- face awarded GALVESTON, H. & S. A. RY. CO. PATTERSON . gia appellants; costs awarded in favor her adjudged against accord- the Grand render her directed appellants. ingly. Reversed, render. and rendered. instructions titled, issued show issued, claims $300, shall entitle titled to ting the sum of judge amount of membership, policies ment be pleading which would and therefore the in evidence date of death of months shall be entitled correct as to affidavits here fix the same at the change, seems to have $500 below, of the question the sum trial hereby, ney’s trial trial said, reversing direct but is This contention was not policy; support that amount respect. addition court and Since fees to which granted November died motion, motion, even set $500. reformed, cannot now be raised. be reduced lodge, attached to amount due it as $300 expressly in this court until $300 insured by agreement aside, that we counsel of said based now here if there the date thereof been Wherefore date. Besides within the in the case allegations on and after concluded to do as well as the only, therefore, in the brief of its in its motion this, follows, 27, 1910, which reason supposed copy the amount of said and entered original be, after with instructions lost, $400; and Lodge provides fixing fix admitted, and that this court ad was sufficient evidence 11, reversed and rendered appellants’ liable and the same is now the amount amount is appellees is evident from the 36 months from the was issued in from what we have shows heretofore must have authorize lodge it 1911, made the amount to the extent certificate, asking into the prays date of issuance error this, the.beneficiary now; but, July 1, against we think the 12 months of $50. shall be en pleadings in thereof used both so, rehearing, and Geor- resistance enough motion in concur overruled, in admit minimum lodge and now of attor after that all alleging registry entered, counsel, such a be en it for judg 1910, is no fees. case at- in- Error, 1103.] 2. Caeeiees rier contracts to deliver at necting 1911, ant from the initial carrier 1. Caeeiees Cent.. curring on the line of the initial carrier. tion the court to evidence sufficient to rebut the. held must be Cent. is the measure of having market value Evidence fusal and sold there 5. Caeeiees Ross, testify as market value. as were a c. 1954, delivery Evidence, 113.] sence of veston, Stock — tle ket Value —Cattle. Note.—For other [Ed. [Ed. Insteuctions. year prior delivery GALVESTON, Assignments Where In an action To establish the market value Where the verdict is evidence, shown, art. Dig. Dig. Shipped. 1970, 1971, (Vernon’s Carriers — Note.—For other Note.—For other of Cause —Reveesal. to establish a carrier Harrisburg shown charges price paid therefor, injured Connecting reverse and remand. exception, PATTERSON. bound knowledge @=>263.] §§ §§ §§ and Eeeoe by express and Eeeoe §§ an animal of cattle G. R. @=229 @=>228 950, 951; *4 @=>219 957-960; @=>474 cattle 2196-2219; in sufficient that like cattle had been Feb. 4, Terrell market at the intrinsic shown. cannot be Appeals shipment Presumptions. §§ against damages, injuries 963, 964; Patterson &H. —Evidence error to 3938-3943; —Live Stock —Connect- were received —Maeket injured contract the initial Caeeiees. place 259-296; Dec. market, injured liable, San @=>263 Exceptions- Ann. 1974, @=>1103 1915.) value at the duty County Court; its S. A. RY. CO. v. value of the animal Carriage cases, to cattle reviewed, clearly contrary to Dee. quantity the end connecting carrier, own sale of such Texas. Antonio Dig. Dig. but otherwise good 1984a. under Rev. delivery and a witness Dee. —Deteemina- giving @=>113 Value —Cat- line, competent shipment, @=>228.] @=>219.] shipment condition. shipped Acts and often 2061). be shown Evidence, of Live El Paso. Dig. presump- Carriers, Carriers, Railway Carriers the Gal- @=>474.] place the con- @=>229-, its defend- —Mae- bought cattle place @= car- line @=* St. oc- ab- B. other cases see <§r»For KEY-NUMBER in all 173 S.W.—18