Wilkerson v. National Council of Knights and Ladies of Security

• Decision Date: 17 February 1920
• Docket Number: No. 13420.,13420.
• Citation: 218 S.W. 976
• Parties: WILKERSON v. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF KNIGHTS AND LADIES OF SECURITY (CAMP, Interpleader).
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

218 S.W. 976

WILKERSON v. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF KNIGHTS AND LADIES OF SECURITY (CAMP, Interpleader).

No. 13420.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri,

Rehearing Denied January 26, 1920.

February 17, 1920.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Thos. B. Buckner, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Mrs. J. H. Wilkerson against the National Council of the Knights and Ladies of Security, in which William A. Camp interpleaded. Judgment for plaintiff, and interpleader appeals. Appeal dismissed.

Boyle & Watson, of Kansas City, for appellant.

Ball & Ryland and Clarence L. Hogin, all of Kansas City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff's action was instituted against defendant to recover on a beneficiary certificate issued by it on the life of Cora E. Weber, who afterwards married William A. Camp. Cora Weber died, and plaintiff claimed the sum due on the certificate as a dependent, as a member of the family. Camp also claimed it by reason of being the surviving husband. Defendant paid the money into court and asked that the respective parties be required to interplead for it. Interpleas were filed, the issues between interpleaders were tried, and judgment rendered for plaintiff in the trial court. Interpleader appealed.

Plaintiff has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that defendant has not filed a brief containing the points or legal propositions upon which he relies for a reversal of the judgment separately and distinctly state the errors upon which he relies for reversal, as required by the statute and our rules 15 and 16 (169 S. W. xiii, xiv).

Appellant's brief contains "Points and authorities" followed by an argument. These "'Points and Authorities" merely state that the court erred, but do not distinctly point out any specific error committed by the court, as will be seen by the following copy thereof;

"Points and Authorities.

"I. The court erred in admitting incompetent, irrelevant, and, immaterial testimony on behalf of the plaintiff.

"II. The court erred in refusing competent, relevant, and material evidence offered on the part of the interpleader.

"III. The court erred in overruling interpleader's motion for a new trial.

"IV. In the entire record and proceedings there is no competent evidence to sustain the judgment of the court

"(1) As shown by all the competent evidence, the plaintiff was not a dependent of the beneficiary certificate holder. [Authorities.]

"(2) Under the evidence and pleadings judgment should have gone for the interpleader. [Authorities.]"

It has been decided that this is not sufficient. Frick v. Ins. Co. (Sup.) 213 S. W. 854; Sullivan v. Holbrook, 211 Mo. 99, 102-104, 109 S. W. 668; Vahldick v. Vahldick, 264 Mo. 529, 532, 175 S. W. 199; McKensie v. Railroad, 24 Mo. App. 392, 396. The first of these cases was decided by the Supreme Court, and the last by the St. Louis Court of Appeals. They are almost precisely like the present case. The language used by the appellant in the first is as follows:

"I. Plaintiff is entitled to recover on the undisputed facts.

"II. When the policy was transferred to plaintiff by the Caney Company, the original insured, defendant was notified of the transfer, and requested to substitute plaintiff as insured, and only the formal part of transfer remained to be arranged. The policy then became a new contract between plaintiff and defendant. Instruction 2 to this effect should have been given. Instruction 5. [Authorities.]

"III. The policy permitted 60 days' vacancy. or nonoperation, and that length of time had not elapsed after plaintiff became the owner and insured when the fire occurred. Instruction 3.

"IV. Plaintiff is not bound by acts of the Home National Bank in its dealings with defendant, the contract between said bank as mortgagee and defendant being a separate contract from the one between plaintiff and defendant, and there is no evidence said bank had authority to act for plaintiff. Instruction 4."

In the last the court said:

"The other objections raised by the appellant are not, in the form in which they are made, worthy of any notice. The first is that `the court erred in excluding competent, material, and relevant evidence offered by the defendant.' To this four decisions are cited; but counsel nowhere point out the rulings they complain of, but seem to expect us to search, of our own motion, through a record of 340 pages, to see if we cannot possibly find that the court somewhere excluded competent, material, and relevant evidence offered by the defendant. The next objection is of the same character. It is that `the court erred in admitting incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial evidence offered by the plaintiff against the objection of the defendant.' To this...