Kinney v. Tri-State Telephone Co.
Decision Date | 21 February 1918 |
Docket Number | (No. 796.) |
Citation | 201 S.W. 1180 |
Parties | KINNEY et al. v. TRI-STATE TELEPHONE CO. et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, El Paso County; P. R. Price, Judge.
Action by Elsie Kinney and another against the Tri-State Telephone Company, wherein Nellie Kinney intervened. From judgment for the intervener, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and rendered.
Jno. T. Hill, Leigh Clark, and Del W. Harrington, all of El Paso, for appellants. Turney, Culwell, Holliday & Pollard and A. Dorman, all of El Paso, C. H. Haines, of Denver, Colo., and Jos. M. Nealon, of El Paso, for appellees.
Elsie Kinney and Nellie O'Favenger brought this suit as the wife and another of H. B. Kinney, deceased, against the Tri-State Telephone Company for $3,060, being the amount of a benefit fund in the latter's hands, due, under a plan of insurance to be hereinafter described, to them as the beneficiaries therein. Nellie Kinney intervened and claims the fund, alleging that she was the lawful wife of said Kinney, and, further, that she had not been divorced from deceased. The Telephone Company answered that it had the money; that, by the terms of the contract, it was payable, first to the wife of deceased, second to the children, and third to the dependent relatives, and that in the absence of either to lapse, tendered the money into court, to be paid to the party to whom the court determined by its judgment it should be paid. This appeal is from a judgment in favor of intervener, Nellie Kinney, for the entire fund.
Findings of Facts.
The findings of facts by the trial court are very lengthy, so we make such statement of the undisputed facts as are, in our judgment, pertinent to the issues raised by the assignments and counter-propositions of appellee.
Harry B. Kinney and Nellie Flaherty were married June 16, 1909, separated October 5, 1911, and never lived together afterwards. She continued to live in the state of Colorado to the date of the institution of this suit. March 26, 1914, he filed his complaint for divorce in the court of Los Angeles county, Cal. Service was had by delivering a summons to Nellie Kinney in Colorado, and on August 19, 1914, the following judgment was entered:
On November 14, 1914, Harry B. Kinney and Elsie Kinney were married and lived together as husband and wife to his death. She believed that he had obtained a divorce, though she later and before his death, found and read the above decree. Concerning the matters next above she testified:
On January 14, 1916, Harry B. Kinney was accidentally killed while in the service of the Telephone Company.
On February 10, 1916, deceased's attorneys of record appeared in the court of Los Angeles, and upon motion the above decree was made final by the following decree:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Allen v. Allen
...139 Cal. 448, 73 P. 143; Winter v. Dibble, 251 Ill. 200, 95 N.E. 1093; Estes v. Merrill, 121 Ark. 361, 181 S.W. 136; Kinney v. Tri-State Telephone Co., 201 S.W. 1180. too, the rule is established by the weight of authority that "The general presumption is that the life of a person continues......
-
Vickers v. Faubion
...Buford v. Holliman, 10 Tex. 560, 60 Am. Dec. 223; Lamb v. Hardy (Sup.) 211 S. W. 445; Johnston v Branch, 143 S. W. 193; Kinney v. Tri-State Telephone Co., 201 S. W. 1180; Blethen v. Bonner (Sup.) 53 S. W. 1016; Thompson Thompson, 202 S. W. 175. The court was in error in admitting the testim......
-
Tikalsky v. Tikalsky, 25156.
...v. Newton, 132 N. W. 91, 166 Mich. 421; Barth's Adm'r v. Barth, 42 S. W. 1116, 102 Ky. 56, 80 Am. St. Rep. 335; Kinney v. Tri-State Tel. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 201 S. W. 1180; 1 Freeman, Judgments (5th Ed.) 255, § 135; 1 C. J. 208. See, also, Bell v. Bell, 21 S. Ct. 551, 181 U. S. 175, 45 L. ......
-
Stone v. Phillips
...we must assume that the laws of the States and jurisdictions here involved are the same as those of this State. Kinney v. Tri-State Tel. Co., Tex. Civ.App., 201 S.W. 1180; Thompson v. Thompson, Tex.Civ.App., 202 S.W. 175. The statute, Article 5537, which suspends the period of limitation du......