Case Name: UNITED BENEVOLENT ASS'N OF TEXAS v. LAWSON et al.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1914-04-23
Citations: 166 S.W. 713
Docket Number: No. 338
Parties: UNITED BENEVOLENT ASS’N OF TEXAS v. LAWSON et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 166
Pages: 713–714

Head Matter:
UNITED BENEVOLENT ASS’N OF TEXAS v. LAWSON et al.
(No. 338.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.
April 23, 1914.
Rehearing Denied May 14, 1914.)
1. Appeal and Error (§ 742 )—Briefs—Assignments of Error—Propositions.
Under Court of Civil Appeals Rule 30 (142 S. W. xiii), requiring that each point under each assignment of error shall be stated as a proposition unless the assignment itself sufficiently discloses the same, assignments that the verdict is contrary to law and that the verdict and judgment are not supported by the evidence fail to show wherein the verdict and judgment are so defective, and, not being presented with appropriate subjoined propositions, are insufficient to present any question for review.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 3000; Dec. Dig. § 742. ]
2. Insurance (§ 813 )—Benefit Certificate —Actions—Parties.
Where defendant issued a benefit certificate insuring the life of deceased in favor of her husband, from whom deceased was divorced, the husband was a proper, but not a necessary or indispensable, party in a suit by deceased’s children to recover the amount of the certificate; and hence plaintiffs were entitled to dismiss as to the husband if they so desired.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Insurance, Cent. Dig. § 1994; Dec. Dig. § 813. ]
3. Appeal and Error (§ 544 )—Review-Record— Bill of Exceptions—Necessity.
An order overruling a plea of privilege, though noting an exception, is not reviewable in the absence of a bill of exceptions disclosing the facts on which the court acted.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2412-2415, 2417-2420, 2422-2426, 2428, 2478, 2479; Dec. Dig. § 544.*]
4. Appeal and Error (§ 500 )—Scope of Review-Rulings.
An assignment to the overruling of a plea setting up the pendency of a suit in another county on the same cause cannot be sustained, where it does not appear that any action was taken by the trial court on the plea, and the transcript does not show any exception with relation thereto.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2295-2298; Dec. Dig. § 500. ]
Appeal from District Court, Harris County; Chas. E. Ashe, Judge.
Action by Willis W. Lawson and others against the United Benevolent Association of Texas. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Morris Rector, of Ft. Worth, for appellant. Ward & Ward, of Houston, for appellees.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes-

Opinion:
HIGGINS, J.
Appellant issued its benefit certificate insuring the life of Margaret E. Lawson in favor of her husband, James W. Lawson. The parties were afterwards divorced, and on August 21, 1912, Mrs. Lawson died. This is a suit by her children to recover of the insurer the amount of the certificate.
The first assignment is that the verdict is contrary to the law; the second is that the verdict and judgment are not supported by the evidence. They are submitted as propositions. Under the former practice, assignments complaining of the insufficiency of the evidence or that the judgment was contrary to the law were required to particularize and point out in what respect the evidence was insufficient or the judgment contrary to the law. Possibly this-rule as to the sufficiency of such an assignment has been changed by Acts of 1913, Reg. Session, p. 276. But it does not alter Rule 30 of the Courts of Civil Appeal (142 S. W. xiii), which requires that each point under each assignment shall be stated as a proposition-unless the assignment itself sufficiently discloses the same. Assignments of such general nature as those indicated do not disclose the point, and in such case the points in the assignment must be presented by appropriate subjoined propositions. Since the-assignments themselves do not disclose the point, they cannot be treated as propositions, and for failure to support same by appropriate propositions, they are not entitled to-consideration and will not be considered.
Plaintiffs originally made James W. Lawson a party defendant and thereafter entered a dismissal as to him. He was a proper but not an indispensable or necessary party. Plaintiffs had a right to dismiss as to-James W. Lawson, if they saw fit to do so. Such dismissal did not in any wise affect appellant's right, by cross-action against him, to have had him retained as a party and the-conflicting claims of the parties, if any, adjudicated. By proper and timely action appellant could have preserved this right. If' it did not do so, it was its own fault. The third assignment, which complains of plaintiff's dismissal as to James W. Lawson, is-therefore overruled.
The fourth assignment complains of the-overruling of a plea of privilége. The order-overruling the same notes an exception thereto, but there is no bill of exception disclosing the facts upon which the court acted, and in the absence thereof the matter cannot be-reviewed.
The fifth assignment is submitted as a proposition. As such it is insufficient because it does not disclose the point or reason why it is contended the court erred in the action to which the assignment relates. Eor this reason it -will not be considered.
The sixth assignment complains of the-action of the court in overruling a plea setting up the pendency of a suit in Tarrant county based upon the same certificate upon-, which the present suit is based. Our attention is not called to any action of the court upon such plea, nor of any exception in relation thereto, and our examination of the transcript does not disclose any. In this condition of the record the assignment of necessity-must be. overruled.
The petition is not subject to a general de murrer as is contended under the seventh assignment. Hatch v. Hatch, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 373, 80 S. W. 411; Cheeves v. Anders, 87 Tex. 287, 28 S. W. 274, 47 Am. St. Rep. 107; Schonfield v. Turner, 75 Tex. 324, 12 S. W. 626, 7 L. R. A. 189. Lawson and Bransford were not indispensable parties, for which reason the eighth assignment is overruled.
The ninth and tenth assignments are not supported by statements as the rules require and are not considered.
The eleventh assignment is submitted as a proposition. As such it is multifarious. Neither is it supported by such statement as the rules require. It is not considered.
Affirmed.