Pearce v. Supreme Lodge, Knights and Ladies of Honor
| Decision Date | 03 January 1917 |
| Docket Number | (No. 5750.) |
| Citation | 190 S.W. 1156 |
| Parties | PEARCE v. SUPREME LODGE, KNIGHTS AND LADIES OF HONOR. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Suit by M. A. Pearce against the Supreme Lodge, Knights and Ladies of Honor. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
E. H. Powell, of San Antonio, for plaintiff in error. Locke & Locke, of Dallas, and C. A. Keller and W. S. Anthony, both of San Antonio, for defendant in error.
This is a suit by M. A. Pearce against the Supreme Lodge, Knights and Ladies of Honor, upon an alleged assignment of $212.50 out of $500 due by defendant to Elizabeth Wolff, Edna Wolff, and Charles Wolff on a beneficiary certificate in favor of Herman T. Wolff issued by defendant. Plaintiff alleged that said assignment was made, in writing and verbally, on April 1, 1911, and that on April 4, 1911, he notified Mrs. Augusta Haack and Chas. A. Jenke, agents of defendant, that he held such assignment, and that he subsequently delivered same to them upon their promise to protect him in his interests therein and see that he was paid; that said agents paid the full amount of the certificate to the beneficiaries named therein and refused to pay plaintiff the amount assigned to him. Defendant answered by general demurrer, general denial, and a special answer, admitting the issuance of a warrant for the $500, of which one-third was payable to Elizabeth Wolff and two-thirds to Chas. A. Jenke, who had duly qualified as guardian of Edna Wolff and Charles Wolff, the other two beneficiaries, who were minors; that such warrant was issued and delivered without any knowledge or notice of plaintiff's claim; that Mrs. Augusta Haack was not an agent of defendants for the purpose of receiving the instrument relied on by plaintiff or any notice of plaintiff's right or claim. It further alleged that Edna and Charley Wolff were minors and without legal capacity to make any assignment, and therefore any attempt by them to make an assignment was invalid. Plaintiff, by supplemental petition, excepted specially to the answer and denied the allegations thereof.
Plaintiff in error, in his assignments, complains of the giving of a peremptory instruction to find for defendant. The record fails to disclose that any objections were made to the charge. There is a bill of exceptions which contains the statement that plaintiff excepted to the giving of the charge,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huling v. Moore
...parties cannot assign the ruling of the court as error. Strong v. Harwell, 185 S. W. 676; McCall & Roemer, 186 S. W. 409; Pearce v. Supreme Lodge, 190 S. W. 1156. As the Courts of Civil Appeals are not in accord on the question, and a writ of error has been granted by the Supreme Court in t......
-
Allen v. Berkmier
...by law. Under this state of facts the motion must be sustained. R. S. art. 2073; Criswell v. Robbins, 152 S. W. 210; Pearce v. Supreme Lodge, 190 S. W. 1156; Loeb v. Railway, 186 S. W. 379; Comm. v. Houston Oil Co., 171 S. W. 520; Rishworth v. Moss, 191 S. W. 850; Byrne v. Lumber Co., 198 S......
-
Byrne v. Texas Lumber & Loan Co.
...176 S. W. 619; Railway Co. v. O'Bannon, 178 S. W. 731; McCall v. Roemer, 186 S. W. 409; Thorne v. Dashiell, 189 S. W. 986; Pearce v. Lodge, 190 S. W. 1156; Carr v. Bank, 189 S. W. 988; Strong v. Harwell, 185 S. W. 676; Ry. Co. v. Wheat, 173 S. W. 974; Gestean v. Bishop, 180 S. W. 302. The r......
-
Harlan v. Acme Sanitary Flooring Co.
...200 S. W. 171; Needham v. Cooney, 173 S. W. 979; Railway Co. v. Wheat, 173 S. W. 974; Loeb v. Railway Co., 186 S. W. 378; Pearce v. Supreme, etc., 190 S. W. 1156; Heidenheimer v. Railway Co., 197 S. W. 886; Commonwealth, etc., v. Bryant, 185 S. W. We have carefully examined this entire reco......