Millard

I concur in the judgment, on the ground that the findings are sufficient to support the judgment, and the evidence is without conflict; but I do not think that we can look at the opinion of the learned judge of the court below. It is no part of the record in this case. Even if it had been made a part of the transcript, it would be stricken out on motion. We have so decided in a recent case.

This is an action brought by the plaintiff, surviving wife of Eugene Alphonse Millard, deceased, to recover, as beneficiary, the amount of insur *341 anee, or benefit certificate, issued by defendant upon the life of said Millard, deceased. The case was tried without a jury, and the court pronounced judgment, in favor of plaintiff, and instructed her counsel to prepare findings. These were prepared accordingly, and adopted and signed by the presiding judge. A motion for a new trial was made by defendant, and was granted by the court, and from the order granting the new trial plaintiff appeals. The deceased was a member of Golden Council No. 118, a subordinate council of respondent.

From the opinion of the court below, inserted in the brief of respondent, it appears that the court granted a new trial for the reason that the findings were defective, — that is to say, although the judgment was apparently right, and although there is nothing to show that the court below thought it wrong, yet it was set aside because the findings (prepared after the court had reached its conclusions, and having nothing whatever to do with the legal merits of the case), did not, in the opinion of the…

I concur in the judgment, but differ toto coelo as to the dicta in relation to findings of facts. I consider the provision in the Code of Civil Procedure as to the finding of facts one of the most valu *350 able in our practice, and one which should be enforced as other laws.. They are binding on this and all other courts, as are all other statutes, and their enforcement cannot be evaded.

Rehearing denied.