Legal Opinion · Dissent
Leal v. Leal
Court of Appeals of Texas
Decided March 17, 1966No. 14475Published
1Dissent
MURRAY, Chief Justice.
I do not concur in the opinion of the majority and here give the reasons for my dissent. The majority seem to base their opinion upon the following statement:
“Under the general rule, which is followed in Texas, where the person designated as beneficiary pays the premiums pursuant to an agreement that he shall remain the beneficiary or receive the proceeds of the policy, such person acquires a vested right in the policy regardless of whether the assured retains the right, under the terms of the policy, to change the beneficiary. 46 C.J.S. Insurance § 1176; Appleman,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- McDonald v. McDonaldSupreme Court of Alabama · 1924
- Thomson v. ThomsonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1946
- Novosel v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of CanadaWyoming Supreme Court · 1936
- Presidio Mining Co. v. OvertonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1921
- Eatman v. EatmanCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1911
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.