the benefitfund, and would only pay the remaining $3,000 providedthat amount couldk, paid out of the emergencyfund of the order e . . The %-y-lawitselfrias,in our opinion,unauthorized,and appelleemight have treatedit a8 void . . ." Hon. 0. Pr Lookhart,page 4,(0-3763-A)
Wirtz v. SovereignCamp, W.O.W.,~ 266 S.W. 438, by a specialSupreme Court, expresslyrecognizedand reaffirmedthe doctrineof the &tte case as follow;:
"It does not appear to us that the Batte case, 34 Tex. Civ. App. 456, 79 S. W. 629, militatesagainstwhat has been said above. That ease did not di- rectly involvethe questionof the right to increaserates;but the associa- tion had issued a polloyupon which-theyhad agreed te pay, upon the death of the Insured,$5,000,but it subsequentlychanged.thecontractso as to make it liable for only #2,OOC,and the Court of CivilAppeals held -- and we think :?roperly- that therewan a repudIatIonof lhe contract. . . .
"Thatthe stipulationer promisein a contraat,suoh as is the basis of this action,that the insuredwIl1 complywith and ba bound by all future regula- t:ons or -v-lawsof the rssooiatlon,does not mean that the societymay in- terfereti.ththe essentialpurposeof the contract,viz., the paymentof the indemnitypromised,or, in otherwords, oannotbe oonstruedas authorizing the socie-tito repudiatea plain contractIs clearlysettledthere is no doubt. . . ."
between reduoingby mean8 of a by-law or an amendmentthe "The amount stipulatedin the most unqualifiedterm8 to be paid, and merely in- creasing-W a by-lawdues or assessmentsto such extent as is neoessaryto meet the oxigenoyensuingout of the changedfinancialconditionof the associationbroughtabout by deoreaseof membershipor death or other caus- =s is ob-rious. "The first is a violationand repudiationof an untiblguouscontraot,while the other is not."
Tha don+rineof the 'Rlrtz0888 wa6 expresslyreoognizedand reaffirmed in Supremc#Lodge Ancient Order of Horkmenv. gemper,155 S.W. (2d) 64, rehear- ing denied C~.:obar6, 1941. Beforequotingwith approvalthe above quoted WIrtz case,the BeaumontCourt of CivilAppeals said:
"The law will enforoethe oontracturalright of a life insuranoecorporation to increa:,ethe amount of its monthly aaressmentsagainetIts members, SupremeLodge H. of P. v. MIm8, Tex. Civ. App., 167 S.W. 635. But the right to inoreaseassessmentsdoes not authorizethe corporationto diminishthe under Its certificate. .~ . .a ,:
Thor&ore, Seation17 of Senate Bill 135 in its expressauthoriz.atLon to mutual insuranoeassooiationsto reduce benefitsauthorizesthe tipair- ment of o'bligationsof contract,is violativeof Section16, Article 1, of the T&as Constitution, and cannot,,underthepronouneementsof the Supreme Court of rexas,be upheldas a valid and constitutional exerciseof the poiioe pafirer of the State.
We regard it appropriateto state that we have fully conaidaredthe case of D%nielv. Tyrell and 6arth InvestmentCompany,79 S.W. (2) 153 - -
Hon. Oe P. Lockhart,page 6 (0-3763-A)
(Opinionby the GalvestonCourt),93 S.W. (2d) 375, 127 Tex. 213 (Opinion by the SupremeCourt),and the oases oited therein,in relationto the cases of Travelercl* Insw!anoeCompanyV. Marshall,and IangeverV. Miller, supra. It ie our conolusionthat this cam may not be aonsidered as overruliwg(or qualifgingthem earlieroases in their applicationto the subjectmatter of this opinion.
In come&ion with the Daniel TT.Tyrelland GuthCcmm aas), attentim is oJ.led to the oaee of FidelityBxlldingand Lean Assooiatdon V. Thompson,45 Sew. (2d), 51 8.W. (2d) 578, the opinionin eaoh being by Judge Crib.
Wb adhere to our