Bankers Protective Life Ins. Co. v. Mozingo

Court of Appeals of Texas

Bankers Protective Life Ins. Co. v. Mozingo

127 S.W.2d 525

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 29, 1938

DocketNo. 12668.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 127 S.W.2d 525 (Bankers Protective Life Ins. Co. v. Mozingo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bankers Protective Life Ins. Co. v. Mozingo, 127 S.W.2d 525 (Tex. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

BOND, Chief Justice.

A beneficiary of a life policy is the person designated, by the terms of the contract as the one to receive the proceeds of the insurance; he is not a party tp the contract — only the recipient of its proceeds. The defendant not being a party to the fraud alleged, she cannot, because of fraud committed by the insured, be sued to cancel the policy out of the forum of her own domicile against a plea of privilege: While fraud may vitiate an insurance policy on trial of the case on its merits against both the insured and the beneficiary, yet, it is not available to avoid the domestic jurisdiction of one not a party to the fraud. First Nat. Bank of Coleman v. Gates et al., Tex.Civ.App., 213 S.W. 720; Krueger v. Waugh, Tex.Civ.App., 261 S.W. 196. The appeal being one of venue originating in the county court, under article. 1873, R.S., we are not required to announce in writing our conclusions and, for reasons aptly stated by Judge Bickett in Associated Indemnity Corporation et al. v. Gatling, Tex.Civ.App., 75 S.W.2d 294, we forego burdening the record and law books with an extended written opinion. Judgment of • the court below is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BOND, Chief Justice.

A beneficiary of a life policy is the person designated, by the terms of the contract as the one to receive the proceeds of the insurance; he is not a party tp the contract — only the recipient of its proceeds. The defendant not being a party to the fraud alleged, she cannot, because of fraud committed by the insured, be sued to cancel the policy out of the forum of her own domicile against a plea of privilege: While fraud may vitiate an insurance policy on trial of the case on its merits against both the insured and the beneficiary, yet, it is not available to avoid the domestic jurisdiction of one not a party to the fraud. First Nat. Bank of Coleman v. Gates et al., Tex.Civ.App., 213 S.W. 720; Krueger v. Waugh, Tex.Civ.App., 261 S.W. 196. The appeal being one of venue originating in the county court, under article. 1873, R.S., we are not required to announce in writing our conclusions and, for reasons aptly stated by Judge Bickett in Associated Indemnity Corporation et al. v. Gatling, Tex.Civ.App., 75 S.W.2d 294, we forego burdening the record and law books with an extended written opinion. Judgment of • the court below is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 S.W.2d 525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bankers-protective-life-ins-co-v-mozingo-texapp-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack