Volume 99 — Oklahoma Reports

<p>Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 1.</p> <p>Error from County Court, Oklahoma County ; C. C. Christison, Judge.</p> <p>Action by Montgomery Ward & Company, a corporation, against Merchants Southwest Transfer & Storage Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.</p>

<p>Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 2.</p> <p>Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; Geo. W. Clark, Judge,</p> <p>Action by William F. Eisenbeis against Samuel Crocker. Judgment for the defendant and plaintiff brings error.</p>

Commissioner’s Opinion, Division No. 2. Error from District Court, Creek County; Lucien B. Wright, Judge. Action by Wiley Knight, a minor, by guardian, against C. C. Kimble, Wm. H. Reading, and Gypsy Oil Company to quiet title and for other relief. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error.

Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 5. Error from Superior Court, Pottawatomie County; Leander 6. Pitman, Judge. Action by Nathan Cowan, against the Caldwell State Bank and 'others. From judgment in favor of the plaintiff, defendants bring error.

Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 4. Error from District Court, Okmulgee County; Mark L. Bozarth, Judge. Action by D. A. Baughman and N. A. Baughman against W. F. '(Red) Davidson for damages for personal injury. The plaintiffs filed a petition in the cause seeking to enjoin the defendant, his attorneys, and the eounty judge of Okmulgee county from taking their depositions to be used as evidence in the cause.

<p>Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 3.</p> <p>Error from District Court, Pontotoc County; J. W. Bolen, Judge.</p> <p>Action by O. C. Garrett against W. F. Schulte. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.</p>

<p>1. Adoption — Validity of Contract — Consideration — Right of Child to Enforce.</p> <p>An agreement to adopt a child as one’s own, and make it an heir, is a valid consideration for the contract of adoption, and the child for whose benefit the contract is made may maintain an action for the enforcement of -such contract.</p> <p>2. Same — Contract not in Writing.</p> <p>It is immaterial that the contract of adoption is not in writing, as statutes relating to the adoption of children are not exclusive to the extent that no right to take property by an adopted child may be created in any other way.</p> <p>3. Frauds, Statute Of — Performance of Oral Contract.</p> <p>The complete performance of an oral contract on the part of the party seeking to avail himself of its benefits takes the case out of the operation of the statute of frauds.</p> <p>4. Adoption — Invalidity — Protection of Rights of Obligee.</p> <p>Though an agreement may be invalid as a contract of adoption, it may be valid as a contract to make certain tei.eamentary provisions for the obligee, who has fully performed on his part.</p> <p>The petition examined, and held sufficient to state a cause of action.</p> <p>5. Same — Establishment of Contract — Evidence.</p> <p>The evidence required to establish a contract of adoption must be clear, definite, and conclusive.</p> <p>6. Same — Specific Performance of Oral Contract.</p> <p>Where the petition for specific performance pleads an oral contract for adoption, and fulfillment of same on part of mother and child, and for participation in estate of decedent, and the evidence is sufficient to prove the same as pleaded, and the nature of the services rendered are such that their value cannot be estimated in money value, and the proof further shows that the parties did not so intend, equity will grant the relief prayed for.</p> <p>7. Same — Defensive Evidence — Change of Mind of Obligor.</p> <p>In the trial of the issues for specific performance of contract for adoption the defendant will not be heard to say the decedent changed her mind after the fulfillment of the contract on the part of the plaintiff, and it is not error1 for the court to rule out testimony having a tendency to show such change.</p> <p>8. Same — Evidence of Plaintiff — Harmless Error.</p> <p>Testimony in such case on the part of plaintiff as to her general treatment of her foster parents and their affection for hex-in acts of kindness is competent as a part of the res gestae on the issue of fulfilling the contract, but testimony as to conversation when they revealed to her the true facts of her relationship as a daughter and proof of her foster mother giving consent in writing to her marriage would be immaterial to the issues, and erroneous, but, the cause being tried to the court, harmless.</p> <p>9. Specific Performance — Void Lease as Es-toppel.</p> <p>Where a void lease contract is pleaded as a defense in an action for specific performance, no question of estoppel is raised thereby against the plaintiff.</p> <p>(Syllabus by Threadgill, 0.)</p>

<p>Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 2.</p> <p>Error from District Court, Creek County; Lucien B. Wright, Judge.</p> <p>Action in replevin by M. A. Urquart against J. B. Steiner. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.</p>

Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 1. Error from District Court, Nowata County ; C. W. Mason, Judge. Action by John Boring against T-B Gasoline Company, a corporation, to recover the sum of $576.71 upon a written contract. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

<p>1. Deeds — “Mental Capacity.”</p> <p>The capacity to make a deed is that the grantor shall have the ability to understand the nature and effect of the act in which he is engaged and the business he is transacting. Miller v. Folsom, 49 Okla. 74, 149 Pac. 1185.</p> <p>2. Same — Sufficiency of Incapacity.</p> <p>It is the general concensus of judicial opinion that mental incapacity, whether it be due to mere weakness of mind or actual insanity, is not in itself a sufficient basis for obtaining the cancellation of a written instrument, unless the state of idiocy or imbecility complained of is such that it rendered the afflicted individual incapable of understanding the nature and effect of the transaction at the time the instrument was executed. 4 K. G. L. p. 503, art. 17.</p> <p>3. Insane Persons — Burden of Proof of Insanity.</p> <p>In all civil actions it is generally held that the burden of proof of insanity rests upon him, who alleges insanity, or seeks to avoid an act on account of it, and it devolves upon him to establish the fact of insanity by a preponderance of the evidence. If, however, a previous state of insanity is proved, the burden of proof is then usually considered to shift to him who asserts that the act was done while the person was sane; however, it has frequently been held that insanity which is not shown. to be settled or general as contra-distinguished from a mere temporary aberration or hallucination will not, be presumed to continué' unless the contrary is shown. 14 R. O. L., p. 622, art. 74.</p> <p>4. Appeal and Error — Equity Case — Conclusiveness of Findings.</p> <p>(a) In an equitable action the findings of the trial court should be sustained unless it appears that his findings are clearly against the weight of the evidence.</p> <p>(b) The findings of the trial court should be strongly persuasive, and should not be set aside unless this court can say in equity and in good conscience that the conclusions reached by the trial court are clearly against the weight of the evidence.</p> <p>5. Deeds — Proof of Mental Incapacity — Adjudication of Insanity.</p> <p>An adjudication of insanity of the grantor of a deed, a short time subsequent to the execution of same, may be offered in evidence in an action wherein the deed is sought to be canceled on the ground of incompetency on the part of the grantor at the time of the execution of same, but it is not conclusive of that fact and may be rebutted and overcome by oral testimony of the mental condition of the grantor at the time he executed the deed.</p> <p>6. Same — Cancellation Refused — Judgment Sustained.</p> <p>The facts as disclosed by the record in this case examined,’and held, that the judgment refusing to cancel the deed in controversy on the ground of incompetency on the part of the grantor is not against the weight of the evidence, and the judgment will not be disturbed.</p> <p>(Syllabus by Jones, G.)</p>

Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 3. Error from District Court, Carter County; Frank Mathews, Assigned Judge. Action by Homer Adams against C. J. Mc-Graw, administrator of the estate of Robert J. Woulfe, deceased, and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.

<p>1. Carriers — Right to' Charge Demurrage.</p> <p>A railway company has the right, under supervision of the Corporation Commission, to charge demurrage for the unreasonable detention of its cars, in unloading freight, where such unreasonable detention is attributable to the fault of the consignee.</p> <p>2. Same — Sufficiency of Notice to Parir Designated.</p> <p>It is no defense to an action for the recovery of demurrage that the defendant, after the shipment was made, obtained the bill of lading, and is the owner of the freight, and had no notice of the arrival of the freight, where due notice was given to the original consignee as provided' by the terms of the bill of lading. ,By obtaining the bill of lading and accepting the freight thereunder, the defendant assumed the liabilities as well as acquiring the rights of the consignee under the. bill of lading.</p> <p>(Syllabus by Jarman, C.)</p>

Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 1. Error from District Court, Garfield County ; James B. Cullison, Judge. Action by Samuel Bratcher, as administrator, against the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Pe Railway Company, O. D. Edwards, and Oliver Newland to recover damages for the negligent injury and death of plaintiff’s intestate. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.

■Commissioners.’ Opinión, Division No. 1. .-..Error from District v Court, Wagoner County; E. A Summers. Judge. ‘ Action by Paul Orton, as administrator, against Citizens Stat.e. Banlt.and T. C. Har-rill for the cancellation of certain deeds and- for an accounting. Judgment for. defendants, and plaintiff .brings error.

Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 4. ' Error from District Court, Osage County; Chas. B. Wilson, Jr., Judge. Action by the First National Bank of Sedan, Kan., against S. P. Krepps for 'debt and attachment of personal property. Judgment sustaining attachment. Defendant brings error.

<p>L Taxation — Tax Deed' — Invalidity.</p> <p>A tax deed which does not show upon its face the amount for which each tract or parcel of land which it purports to convey was sold, is for that reason void.</p> <p>2. Quieting Title — Burden of Pfiocf — Title of Plaintiff.</p> <p>The plaintiff in an action to quiet title to land must allege and prove that he is the owner of either the legal title or the epmplete equitable title. LTnlejss plaintiff has the title, it is immaterial to him what title defendant claims.</p> <p>3. Sanje-^-Vaid Tax ¡Deed — Judgment not Sustained.</p> <p>A tax deed void on its face vests in plaintiff no interest in the title to the, land therein described, and, as plaintiff must prevail on the strength of his own title, a judgment clearing his title thereto is void.</p> <p>(Syllabus by Foster, O.)</p>

<p>1. Appeal and Error — Stay ’of Proceedings . . Below — Independent Matters.</p> <p>Where plaintiff files its action for money due for,goods, wares and merchandise, sold and-delivered to,,the defendants, ánd causes garnishment summons to be issued, and the garnishment order .is afterward by the court dissolved, from which order dissolving the garnishment, the plaintiff appeals, the court does not lose jurisdiction of the cause on matters distinct from the garnishment proceeding, but retains jurisdiction to hear and determine the issues in the cause, not affected by such appeal.</p> <p>2. Appeal and Error — Change bf Theory on Appeal.</p> <p>Where plaintiff has presented his case to the trial court upon a certain and definite theory,' he may not present the cause to this court upon any theory not presented to the court below, and this court will refuse to determine a question raised for the first time in this court unless it clearly appears to be jurisdictional.</p> <p>(iSyllaibus by Rutb, C.)</p>

<p>1. Libel and Slander — Special Damages — Necessity.</p> <p>Recovery cannot be had by plaintiff in a suit for libel where no special damages are alleged or proved unless the communication complained of is libelous pér se.</p> <p>2. Same — Meaning of Words — Shortage of Public .Official.</p> <p>The words “He was short $5,500,” referring to a former public official, are- not clearly defamatory on their face, but are reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning as well as an innocent one.</p> <p>(Syllabus by Ray, C.)</p>

Error from District Court, Alfalfa 'County ; James B. Cullison, Judge. Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 1. Action by P. P. Miller and S. S. Williamson, partners doing business as the Miller Grain Company against the Amorita Milling Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.

<p>Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 2.</p> <p>Error from County Court, Woods County; L. T. Wilson, Judge.</p> <p>Action by the State of Oklahoma ex rel. L. Z. Lasley, County Attorney, against Estol Halton. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.</p>

<p>1. Easements — Basts 'of Way of Necessity.</p> <p>A way of necessity is based upon the presumption of a grant, and will never exist if the two tracts of land .are not shown at some time in the past to have belonged to one and the same person.</p> <p>2. Same — Mere Convenience not Sufficient Basis.</p> <p>No application of a grant of a right of way can arise from proof that the land granted cannot ibe don^niently ocdúpied without it; its foundation rests in necessity, not in convenience. A party cannot have a way of necessity through the land of another when the necessary way to the highway can be obtained through his own land, however convenient and useful another might be.</p> <p>3. Same — Implied Grants not Favored.</p> <p>It may be said in general that the tendency of the ■ courts is to discourage implied grants of easements, since the obvious result, especially in the urban communities, is to fetter estates and retard buildings and improvements, and is in violation of the policy of the recording acts.</p> <p>4.. ¡Licenses — Distinguished from Easement.</p> <p>License is an authority to do a particular act or series of acts upon another’s land without possessing an estate therein. It is distinguished from an easement which implies an interest in the land to be affected.</p> <p>5. Same — Revocation of License.</p> <p>It is an ancient and well-settled doctrine of the common law that a mere license, whether by deed or parol, is revocable at pleasure, unless coupled with an interest or grant.</p> <p>6. Party Walls — Rights in Space Between Party Wall and Street.</p> <p>The land lying in front of a party wall, between that and the line of the street, is to be exclusively enjoyed by its owners, free from any burden or easement growing out -of a simple party wall agreement, or created by statute, and is to be occupied by the adjoining owners according to the boundary lines of their lots for the construction of their fronts.</p> <p>(Syllabus by Thompson, O.)</p>

Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 5. Error from District Court, Pittsburg County; Hal Johnson, Assigned Judge. Action by the Sac City Canning Company, a corporation, against the Griffin Grocery Company, a corporation, for the recovery of $2,250 and interest and costs upon a written contract. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error.

<p>1. Appeal and Error — Discretion of Lower Court — Vacation of Judgment.</p> <p>A petition to vacate a judgment under section 810, Comp. Stat. 1921, is addressed to the sound legal discretion of the trial court, and the judgment will not be disturbed on appeal unless it clearly appears that the trial court has abused that discretion.</p> <p>2. Same — Sustaining Demurrer to Petition.</p> <p>Record examined, and held, the trial court did not err in sustaining a • demurrer to the petition to vacate.</p> <p>(Syllabus by Ray, C.)</p>

<p>Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 5.</p> <p>Error from District Court, Wagoner County; Benjamin B. Wheeler, Judge.</p> <p>Action by George Culp, against Bennie Trent, Chaney Trent, Bessie Trent, Lee Drew Trent, a minor, Harry G. Davis, L. James Marks, W. T. McConnell, Willie Mill-ner, and A. L. Snaden, to set aside fraudulent conveyances, claimed to have been executed in fraud of creditors, and to declare a lien and decree said property to be sub-iect to execution for the payment and satisfaction of judgment of plaintiff in error. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff brings error.</p>

<p>Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 4.</p> <p>Error from District Court, Greer. County; T. P. Clay, Judge.</p> <p>Action by N< S. Sherman Machine & Iron Works, a corporation, against Christopher Press Controller Company, a corporation, B. F. Van Dyke, and P. F. Slaton. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants bring error.</p>

<p>Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 3.</p> <p>Error from District Court, Dewey County; T. P. Clay, Judge.</p> <p>Action by First National Bank of Taloga against J. G. Salisbury. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.</p>

<p>Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 2.</p> <p>Error from Superior Court, Muskogee County; Guy F. Nelson, Judge.</p> <p>Action by Scheruble Hen* ins P'umblnc & Repair Shop against Mrs. M. M. Holland and Carrie Holland. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.</p>

<p>1. Mortgages — Deed Intended, as Mortgage —Proof.</p> <p>Although, in form, an instrument is a deed and purports to convey absolute title to the property, yet, if it was given as security for an indebtedness, it is an equitable mortgage, and extraneous evidence is admissible to show that it is a mortgage.</p> <p>2. Same — Release of Equity to Mortgagee-Effect.</p> <p>A mortgagor may, subsequent to the giving of a mortgage, by a new and independent contract, supported by a good and sufficient consideration, in the absence of fraud, oppression, or undue influence, sell or release his equity of redemption to the mortgagee, and thereby give to the latter uhe absolute ownership of the property.</p> <p>(.Syllabus by Jarman, C.)</p>

Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 3. Error from County Court, Beaver County; H. D. Meese, Judge. Action by the State against Clyde Law-head. Judgment in favor of the State for bastard child, and defendant appeals.

Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 5. Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; Geo. W. Clark, Judge. Action by A. S. Garland against the Car-parthia Petroleum Company and others for broker’s commission. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff brings error.

<p>Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 3.</p> <p>Error from District Court, Garvin County; W. L. Eagleton, Judge.</p> <p>Action by Oklahoma Farm Mortgage Company against Albert M. Rennie et al. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.</p>

<p>Appeal and Error — Absence of Answer Brief —Reversal.</p> <p>Wfcere the plaintiff in error has, in compliance with the rules of the court, served and filed his brief, but the defendant in error has neither filed nor offered an excuse for his failure to file brief, the court is n< t required to search the records to find a theory upon which a judgment may be sustained, an,d may reverse the case in accordance with the prayer of plaintiff in error, if the brief filed appears reasonably to sustain such action.</p> <p>(Syllabus by Thompson, C.)</p>

<p>Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 4.</p> <p>Error from District Court, Cotton County; Cham Jones, Judge.</p> <p>Action brought by J. C. Norman for money had and received, against J. W. Jackson, A. S. Wells, E. S. Bingham, O. F. Gammill, E. S. Martin, P. J. Hartzler, It. L. Wyatt, W. T. Huff, D. L. Davis, R. A. Odam, W. D. Sawyer, E. E. Jackson, and Claude Caddell, Jackson-Queen Oil & Gas Company, a copartnership composed of J. W. Jackson, A. S. Wells, A. G. Bingham, O, F. Gammill, E. S. Martin, P. J. Hartzler, it. L. Wyatt, D. Ij. Davis, R. A. Odam, W. D. Sawyer, E. E. Jackson, W. T. Huff, Claude Caddell and A. J. Emery. Judgment went for plaintiff, and against all of the defendants except A. S. Wells and A. J. Emery. The defendants, except the last two named, have appealed to this court.</p>

<p>1. Criminal Law — Parties to Offenses— Relation of Principal and Agent not Recognized.</p> <p>Thte law dloes not r.edognjze the relationship of principal and agent in fixing the responsibility for the commission of crime. All persons who engage in the commission of the wrongful acts will be- held responsible for the wrong done according to the rules of law.</p> <p>2. Malicious Prosecution — Verdict—Insufficiency of Evidence.</p> <p>Record examined; held, to be insufficient to support verdict for the plaintiff.</p> <p>(Syllabus by Stephenson, C.)</p>

<p>Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 5.</p> <p>Error from District Court, Osage County : Charles B. Wilson, Jr, Judge.</p> <p>Action in replevin by the Chautauqua State Bank of Chautauqua, Kan., against Seth Lewis and the First National Bank of Sedan, Kan. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.</p>

. Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 5: Error from District Court, Tulsa County; Valjean Biddison, Judge. Action by Ada Littlehead, an adult incompetent person, by her next friend and legal guardian, Harry F. Eagan, against Emmett E. Mount et al. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.

<p>1. Insurance — Fidelity Pfljlicyj — 'Construction — Breach of Warranty — Burden of Proof.</p> <p>Contracts of fidelity insurance will be liberally construed to accomplish the purpose of indemnity for which they are made, and, where the defense is a breach of the warranty by the insured, the burden of proof rests upon the insurer to establish the allegations charging such breach.</p> <p>2. Same — Judgment Sustained.</p> <p>Record examined, and held, the judgment of the trial court is amply supported by the evidence.</p> <p>(Syllabus -by Pinkham, C.)</p>

<p>Insurance — Liability on Plate Glass Policy.</p> <p>A policy of plate glass insurance provided that the company should not be liable for any loss or damage caused by or from the acts or operations of workmen engaged. in the construction of or repairs to the building or frames in which the glass covered by the policy is located. Thereafter the company elected to replace the broken glass and for that purpose contracted with a person to replace’ the same and while so doing one of the workmen engaged in replacing the broken glass negligently broke another glass belonging to the assured and which was covered by the policy. Held, the loss in the instant case was not the result of alterations or repairs to the building or frames in which the glass covered by the policy was located, within the meaning of the policy, and that the insurance company was liable for such breakage.</p> <p>(Syllabus by Pinkham, O.)</p>

<p>Commissioners’ Opinion Division Nb. 5.</p> <p>Error from District Court, Blaine County; Thos. A. Edwards, Judge.</p> <p>Action by E. S. Doerfler against the State Guaranty Bank of Okeene, Okla. From judgment agauist the deienuant, defendant brings error.</p>

<p>1. Appeal and En'or —■ Harmless Error — Admission of Evidence Later Stricken.</p> <p>Where, in response to a proper question, a portion of the witness’ answer is incompetent and irrelevant, and such incompetent and irrelevant, testimony is .stricken by tbe court and. tbe, jury instructed to disregard tbie. same, and it is not apparent from an examination of tbe whole record that tbe complaining party was prejudiced by sucb answer, no reversible error bas been committed by the court’s refusal to dismiss tbe jury and declare a mistrial.</p> <p>2. Evidence — Expert Testimony — Visible . Personal Injuries and Cause.</p> <p>"Where a person is struck by an automobile and forcibly knocked to tbe pavement and is-found to have sustained lacerations, contusions, and abrasions visible to the unprofessional, as well as the professional person, held, such are not of such character as to require skilled and professional persons to determine -the cause thereof, and the question of the injuries and the cause thereof is not one of science, and need not necessarily be proven by tbe testimony of skilled and professional persons.</p> <p>3. Appeal and Error — Review — Conflicting Evidence.</p> <p>Where a cause has been fairly submitted to the jury under proper instructions, this court will not examine conflicting testimony to determine tbe weight and sufficiency thereof.</p> <p>.(Syllabus by Ruth, C.)</p>

Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 4. Error from County Court, Ottawa County; C. iS. Wiortman, Judge. Actions by S. A. Coolt against the Security Insurance Company and the Reliance Insurance Company for debt on fire insurance policies. Judgment for plaintiff. Causes consolidated. Defendants bring error.

Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 4. Error from District Court, Grady County; Will Linn, Judge. Action by L. W. Long for damages against the Chicago, R. I. & P. Railway Company for delay in furnishing cars for shipment of live stock. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.

<p>Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 3.</p> <p>Error from District Court, Kay County; J. W. Bird, Judge.</p> <p>Action by J. Y. Turner and others against H. O. Ferriman. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.</p>

Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 4. lError from District Court, Jefferson County; Cham Jones, Judge. , Action by Rock Island Implement Company against Mrs. Fagerquist, on conditional sales contract, for possession of personal property, to foreclose lien to satisfy the remainder of the unpaid purchase price. First State Bank of Ringling intervened and claimed a superior right of possession to the plaintiff. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff brings error.

Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 4. Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; C. C. Smith, 'Assigned Judge. Action by Mattie R. McHan against Chas. H. Garnett. Arthur C. Hobble and E. L. Garnett, to cancel and set aside certain judgments as a cloud upon the title to certain real property owned by the plaintiff. During the course of the litigation plaintiff died and the cause was revived in the name of Geo. E. Storm, administrator; and M. T. Swisher, Geo.

<p>Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 5.</p> <p>Error from District Court, Cherokee County ; J. H. Jarman, Judge.</p> <p>Action by Manufacturers Finance Company, a corporation, against I. Sherman to recover money judgment. Judgment for defendant. and plaintiff appeals.</p>

Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 4. Error from District Court, Stephens County; Cham Jones, Judge. Action by Iona May Fletcher, a minor, for debt on insurance policy against the Royal Neighbors of America. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.