Court Opinion

ID: 9683700
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:35:29.282508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:49.746166
License: Public Domain

CRAMER, Justice.
I concur in the result reached by the majority in this case. The majority correctly held that the assignment vests in the assignee the beneficial interest in and to the certificate.
The provisions of the policy as to a change of beneficiary are for the benefit of The Praetorians alone. Splawn v. Chew, 60 Tex. 532. However such provisions have been waived by The Praetori-ans by the filing of the interpleader suit herein.
The Praetorians could have refused to recognize the assignment but they did not.
Here, as in Splawn v. Chew, supra, the change in the beneficiary was not made in the manner provided by the policy but an ordinary assignment of the proceeds was used instead. The court in the Splawn case, supra, in substance held that the pro*427vision of the policy as to change of beneficiary could be waived by The Praetorians and they alone could have enforced it.
The majority of the states follow this rule. See Note 135 A.L.R., p. 1040.