Court Opinion

ID: 9832762
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:10:17.40193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:51.804292
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Vigorous complaint is made that we did not discuss seriatim et ad literatim each question argued and presented in counsel’s brief. We thoroughly examined, then, as we have now done, all the points raised and presented, and now again have gone over the statement of facts.
Payments were required to be made:
•“First, to the wife of a Master Mason, if she is living; second, to the legal child or children, if living; third, .to his mother if living; fourth, to his unmarried sister, if living; and, fifth, to his father, if living; sixth, the married sister or brother, provided she or he take care of him in his last hours. of illness.”
The constitution of the lodge further provided:
“Sec. 2. The Grand Lodge shall not extend relief or aid to the wife of a Master Mason who has deserted, quit, separated, or divorced herself from him before his death.
“Sec. 5. Master Masons’ wives, who separate, quit, and live lives of prostitution, shall *643not be granted or extended relief from tbe Grand Lodge relief fund.”
Tbe defense of tbe lodge seems largely predicated upon tbe theory that it selected five of its members to examine into and report tbe name of tbe beneficiary, and, upon that l’eport being made, it,was such a finding of fact and such an adjudication as when acted upon protected the order from ^the claim of appellee, because pleading protection under:
“Section 10 of the constitution of tbe Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of the' State of Texas, as adopted on July 17, 1924, provides that ‘When a Master in good financial standing dies, he having paid in full $10 his relief and Grand Lodge dues to the Grand Lodge, it shall be the duty of the secretary of his lodge to file in the office of the Grand Secretary a sworn statement, signed by five Master Masons, giving the date of death and setting forth when the brother joined the lodge, who his beneficiaries are under the laws of the Grand Lodge; where he died, and whether he was given a decent Masonic burial by the beneficiary, and what lodge performed the Masonic ceremonies. If the beneficiary gave the dead Master Mason a decent Masonic burial, it shall be the duty of the Grand Secretary, immediately after receiving the said statement signed by the five Master Masons, to draw a check payable to the order of the beneficiary for $200 and send it to the secretary of his lodge who shall turn it over to the beneficiary, who shall pay all funeral expenses out of the $200, and the Grand Lodge nor local lodge of Free and Accepted Masons shall ever be held responsible to pay the funeral expenses of a Master Mason. The $200 immediate relief so paid by the Grand Lodge shall be deducted from the total sum of relief funds collected each year, and which shall be prorated on the last day’s session of the Grand Lodge in June of each and every year, and the balance, if any, paid to the beneficiary; which shall be known as the second payment of relief.’ ”
Tbe witness, testifying further, stated that tbe affidavit was made out and sent in after tbe death of Claud Fenner, relative to bis death.
“I sent that affidavit in myself, but I have not the original of it at this time.”
Contending tbe affidavit complied with section 10 of article 6 of tbe constitution, which was just read, in which:
“It states in here that it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the home lodge to file in the office of the Grand Secretary a sworn statement, signed by five Master Masons, giving the date of death and setting forth when the brother joined the lodge, who' his beneficiaries are under the laws of the Grand Lodge; that was stated in that affidavit. The name put in there was ‘Sylvia Fenner.’ She is the mother of Claud Fenner. The reason for putting her name in that affidavit as beneficiary was because she swore to me she eared for him in his illness. You have asked me why I did not put his wife’s name in there, and I will say her name was down there, on the bottom line, with the recommendation that the money be paid to the one who cared for him, who was Sylvia Fenner, his mother, and not Josephine Fenner, his wife.
“I saw Claud Fenner and his wife together some six or seven months before the death of Claud Fenner. I saw them together on the 19th of June; she was riding in a car with him. That was the only time.
“I did not see Claud very often during that time. I do not know whether or not they were living together as husband and wife in that timé.
“As to whether or not Josephine was ever separated from Claud Fenner, she lived over here in San Antonio, but I do not know whether they were separated or not. As to whether she was living under the same roof with him at the time of his death, in the same house with him, she did not come there until he went to the hospital. He was in' the hospital when he died. He was taken to the hospital at the time of his last illness. You have asked me if I know whether they were living together as man and wife at the time of his death, and I will say she was living down at his mother’s with him, but whether they were living together at the time of his death, at the time he was taken to the hospital, she did not come to the hospital until he was taken over there on a Sunday morning, but I do not know whether she was living with him there or not.”
We have thus quoted largely from tbe testimony and presumed authority under which tbe appellant attempts to justify itself in making tbe payment to tbe mother. The report Of tbe five members was not attacked for fraud, misconduct, or arbitrary action in making the designation, but tbe report on its face and the testimony itself in connection therewith showed want of care and extreme carelessness In securing the facts necessary to act on. We cannot see upon what theory they found bis wife not to be tbe beneficiary, for she was expressly made so by tbe terms and provisions of appellant’s constitution abd by-laws. It is a charitable institution and extends its charity or relief to worthy persons and its members, in accord with its own fixed laws and rules. When tbe witness put in tbe report naming Sylvia Fen-ner as beneficiary instead of Josephine Fen-ner, that was in direct contradiction of tbe terms of tbe contract weH known to tbe order. On its face it showed it was made upon an ex parte investigation carelessly or arbitrarily so, without full investigation, stating:
“The reason for putting her name in • that affidavit as beneficiary was because she (the mother) swore to me she cared for him in his illness.”
Tbe testimony was conflicting. Tbe trial court, no doubt, found that tbe wife was merely temporarily absent from him, not permanently; .that she did return to him promptly, on notice, in bis last illness, though afterwards driven away by her husband’s mother.
*644The report of the five members does not amount to a conclusive finding of fact; indeed, it undertakes no finding of any fact provided for that would defeat appellee’s rights. The court has found the facts in her favor, and we do not feel disposed to disturb his ruling.
The motion is overruled.