Court Opinion

ID: 9833122
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:28:29.593856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:59.930558
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellant in its motion for rehearing urges with considerable force that we were in error in not holding as conclusive the declarations of the beneficiary in the proof of death furnished appellant and to the effect that deceased was taken sick in May, 1931, with the trouble causing his death.
We are unwilling to announce such a binding rule as applicable to the facts in this ease. Jones on Evidence (3d Ed.) § 296, announces that admissions in order to become conclusive must be either contractual in their nature or constitute an estoppel, and the declarations of appellee cannot be said to be either contractual in that sense or meet all the conditions constituting an estoppel, even had an estoppel been pleaded. Under the liberal rule prevailing in Texas that the judge or jury trying the case is clothed with the power to pass upon the weight to be given the testimony and the credibility of the witnesses, it is clear to our mind that no such rule should be avail•able to appellant under the state of the pleadings and evidence in this case.
’ We have been unable to find any authorita-*986tlve Supreme Court decision directly deciding this question, but the case of Thornell v. Missouri State Life Ins. Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 249 S. W. 203, 208, deals exhaustively with the question of the admissibility of death certificates as a part of an insured’s proof of death, and Justice Powell holds such statements have been almost uniformly held admissible and incidentally used this language as to the conclusive affect of admissions of this kind, “The only real controversy about the admissibility of such proofs of death is, as stated in many of the authorities, as to whether or not such proofs are conclusively binding upon the beneficiary. We are glad the Texas courts have adopted the more liberal rule to the effect that these so-called ‘admissions by adoption’ are admitted subject to explanation or contradiction.” And Justice Speer in the case of Knights of Modern Maccabees v. Gillis, 59 Tex. Civ. App. 109, 125 S. W. 338, in discussing the admissibility and effect of such character of admissions, says, “It is not contended, nor can it be, that such representations are conclusive on the parties, but practically all the authorities agree that the proofs are admissible as representations, or ‘admissions by adoption’ as some of the writers put it, subject, however, to explanation or contradiction.” (The italics are ours.) Of course, there could be no difference in principle as to whether such declarations are originals or declarations by adoption.
The motion is overruled.