On Motion of Appellee for a Rehearing.
We think the action of this court in overruling the contention that appellee, having been named such at a time when it was lawful for her to be the beneficiary in the policy, could not by a change in the law be deprived of rights she had acquired, has sufficient support in the cases cited in the opinion heretofore filed and in other cases as follows: Cheeves v. Anders, 87 Tex. 287, 28 S. W. 274, 47 Am. St. Rep. 107; Finn v. Met. Life Ins. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 16 S.W.(2d) 922; Goldbaum v. Blum, 79 Tex. 638, 15 S. W. 564; Schonfield v. Turner, 75 Tex. 324, 12 S. W. 626, 7 L. R. A. 189; Shoemaker v. American Nat. Ins. Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 48 S.W.(2d) 612.
But, as wás stated in said opinion, we thought it sufficiently appeared that appellee, as a creditor of the insured, had an insurable interest in his life entitling her to claim as the beneficiary named in the policy, and reversed the judgment in her favor only because the amount of the insured’s indebtedness to her did not appear in the evidence heard by the trial court. After further consideration of the matter, we have concluded it should be held that the evidence warranted a finding that the agreement between the insured and appellee was that the value of the service rendered and to be rendered by the latter to the former was a sum equal to the amount to become payable to appellee by the terms of the policy at the death of the in-surecl. In that view, the action of this court in reversing the judgment of the trial court for the reason stated was erroneous. As, in the view of this court, the judgment was not invalid on any other ground urged by appellant, it should have been affirmed. Therefore the judgment heretofore rendered here will be set aside, and the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.