¶1On Appellant’s Second Motion for a Rehearing and Appellee’s Motion to Withdraw Opinions on Appellant’s First Motion for Rehearing.
¶2This case is before us on appellant’s second motion for a rehearing and appellee’s motion that the opinion of the court on appellant’s original motion for rehearing be withdrawn, and that appellant’s motion for a rehearing be overruled.
¶3We still adhere to the view expressed in the opinion written by Associate Justice FRASER on appellant’s motion for a re-hearing that the only question before the trial court, under the bill of interpleader and the respective responses of appellant and appellee was as to whether the Administrator of the Estate of James Roe, Deceased, or the Administrator of the Estate of Edna I. Roe, Deceased, was entitled to administer the fund paid into court by the interpleader. This is the only question disposed of by the judgment. Had the proceeds of the policy been the separate property of Edna Roe, deceased, at the time of her death, of’course her administrator would have been entitled thereto. Had the property been the community property of James Roe, deceased, then his administrator would be entitled to administer same, regardless of whether the property was his separate property or was community property. ' The judgment did authoritatively determine that the property was not the separate property of Edna I. Roe, deceased.
¶4The case of Hildebrandt v. Ames, 27 Tex. Civ.App. 377, 66 S.W. 128, (writ of error denied) is deemed in many respects analogous to the instant case. In that case the ■Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment in the case as to the proceeds of an insurance policy between the administrator of the husband and the administrator of the wife", in which it was held that the administrator of the husband had the right to collect the proceeds of a policy payable about as the policy in the instant case, where the husband and wife perished in a common disaster, but this judgment by its terms was without prejudice to the heirs of the wife to assert that same was community property. It is not deemed within the jurisdiction of this court to determine when, if ever, or where, the heirs of Edna I. Roe have a right to assert that the proceeds of this policy were community property. Therefore, we deem it proper that the opinion of Associate Justice Alan R. FRASER on the motion for re-hearing be *866withdrawn and this opinion substituted therefor, and the concurring opinion of Associate Justice Joseph McGILL on motion for re-hearing be withdrawn likewise.
¶5It is accordingly ordered that appellant’s second motion for a re-hearing be in all things overruled, and appellee’s motion be granted to the extent that the opinion on the motion for re-hearing be withdrawn, but' the foregoing opinion be substituted therefor.