Hedges v. Williams
| Decision Date | 15 June 1901 |
| Citation | 64 S.W. 76 |
| Parties | HEDGES v. WILLIAMS et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Marion county; J. M. Talbot, Judge.
Action by Elizabeth Williams against J. R. Hedges and another. From a judgment for plaintiff and the other defendant, defendant Hedges appeals. Affirmed.
R. R. Taylor, for appellant. P. A. Turner, for appellee Elizabeth Williams. Maurice E. Locke, for appellee Mutual Life Ins. Co.
The appellee, the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, under date of March 20, 1890, issued its policy of insurance No. 395,957 upon the life of one John Williams, whereby it promised "to pay * * * unto John Williams, * * * his executors, administrators, or assigns, $3,500, upon acceptance of satisfactory proofs of the death of said John Williams * * * during the continuance of this policy." Thereafter, on March 24, 1890, said John Williams executed in duplicate a written assignment to appellant of said policy, at the same time delivering to him one copy of the assignment, with the policy, and sending the other copy of the assignment to appellee insurance company. The policy was taken out for the purpose of securing appellant in the payment of a debt owing to him by the said John Williams, and appellant paid the first and all subsequent premiums accruing on said policy. Said premiums, with interest, amounted in the aggregate to the sum of $1,634.05, but the amount of the original debt to secure which the policy was taken out was a matter of sharp dispute. On the 18th day of March, 1899, Williams died, and appellant promptly furnished proofs of death to the insurance company, and thereafter, on May 24, 1899, the insurance company paid him $3,500, the full amount of the policy. Appellee Mrs. Williams gave the insurance company no notice that she claimed any interest in the policy, although advised of appellant's efforts to collect the same. In June thereafter appellant paid Mrs. Williams $50, in consideration of which he took from her a purported relinquishment of all her claims under said policy. At the time this alleged relinquishment was obtained, the policy had been paid to appellant, but this fact was concealed from the appellee; on the contrary, she was told at the time the relinquishment was being sought, and before its execution, that the policy had not been paid, and she was further told that the only object in asking her to execute the relinquishment was that it might be of assistance in collecting the policy, and that the $50 paid was all she would be entitled to even if the policy should be collected. On April 2, 1900, appellee Mrs. Williams, as surviving relict and sole heir of John Williams, who died intestate, instituted this suit against both appellant and appellee insurance company, alleging, in substance, that Hedges had no insurable interest in Williams' life, and that the insurance company was aware of that fact, and that its payment to him was wrongful and did not discharge its liability under the policy; that for the same reasons appellant had no right to receive and retain said money; that the purported relinquishment of all her claims under the policy was void, in that it was obtained by fraud. The appellee insurance company answered, admitting the payment to appellant of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Olschewske v. Priester
...202 S. W. 199 (testimony by plaintiff that "the balance of the note," made by deceased, "had never been paid"); Hedges v. Williams, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 551, 64 S. W. 76, 78 (proceeds of policy on life of Williams had been collected by Hedges as assignee and Mrs. Williams sued Hedges et al. fo......
-
Williams v. Kincannon
...of the suit, and bound by whatever judgment may be rendered therein. Simpson v. Brotherton, 62 Tex. 170; Hedges v. Williams, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 551, 64 S. W. 76, 77, 78; Tomkins v. McGinn (Tex. Civ. App.) 85 S. W. 452; Clark v. Briley (Tex. Civ. App.) 193 S. W. 419, 422; Bennett v. Cattle Co......
-
Whitfield v. Diffie
...as her husband in the result of the suit, and must be treated as a party to it. Simpson v. Brotherton, 62 Tex. 170; Hedges v. Williams, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 551, 64 S. W. 76. We think the same rule would apply The question, then, is: Was the evidence introduced looking to all of it sufficient ......
-
Crispi v. Emmott
...equal force to books of account kept by a party who seeks to establish by his records a transaction with a deceased. Hedges v. Williams, 26 Tex.Civ.App. 551, 64 S.W. 76; Watson v. Dodson, Tex.Civ.App., 143 S.W. 329; McCoy's Estate v. Brown, Tex.Civ.App., 268 S.W. 241. In our opinion, the tr......