General Bonding & Casualty Ins. Co. v. McCurdy

796 537, 1152, Co., 152 S. W. 105 Tex. 147 S. W. Mfg. 5 Fire Ins. Howard Co. v. Gloucester Am, May, 376]; Gray (Mass.) Ins. [66 Dec. 498 625. 36, Gallatin, 3

369; Wis. Co. v. Insurance jury, charged in the [2] The court agent’s powers restrict N. W. 772. The ed, but this does ny form his sistent with himi to award event found waive; compa power not have and he together policy, power the amount of the not affect agent duty in cent, attorney’s It is the to waive. per penalty, thereof as a principal him incon acts known complained $50. fees and, policy, if he of the the terms they might instructing jury erred in agent so, to of the the fault fail wards his do it is attorney’s principal, penalty will not exonerate find for him for the Co., supra.” Bories v. Insurance latter. Von fees, for the reason he Freeman, entitled to recover therefor unless above Company v. In Insurance company pay Ap- on the made demand ment of the cited, of Civil Antonio Court the San policy, that there no evi peals the law to be as follows: states made such a demand. dence principle that if is a well-established “It agreement put agreed, condi for breach of has occurred forfeiture tion It was company policy, and the in an insurance evidence, at reasonable $50 was a facts, knowledge thereafter, tionally accepts by ped uncondi plain torney’s fee, in it was ease found premium, it there and retains plead estop- forfeiture, Plaintiff tiff to recover. was entitled and is former waives the grounds setting up made written demand de ed that he had fendant that p. 1369, Joyce, Ins. as a defense. forfeiture policy, payment of the for the 151; in note Insurance cited and authorities 1913, refused. Acts demand 35; 487, Hanna, Mor 17 S. W. 81 Tex. Co. v. Beach, 898; 257, Co., p. case was the time this force ris Ins. Insurance v. Iowa, n tried, p. 77; [30 Co. Walsh v. Insurance provision: contains this Raddin, Rep. 664; Insurance Co. Ct. 500 133] 6 Am. plead to “The defendant in 644]; his answer Sup. 183, [30 L. Ed. 120 U. S. plaintiff’s petition, alleged fact each either 528, Co., 16 Atl. Insurance 56 Conn. McGurk v. 263 deny deny same, he admit or by Justice [1 563]. R. A. As is said L. any knowledge or information thereof suffi- has Raddin, supra: Gray ‘If in Co. v. in Insurance belief, cient to form a fact not denied premium accept payment of a surers know the deny that defendant or he does not the has has been a breach of condition there knowledge or information thereof sufficient acceptance premium policy, of the to form a belief shall taken as confessed.” policy for that to avoid the waiver Upon principle can there breach. be deny the al- The of defendant failure To hold otherwise no doubt about this. legations the demand as to maintain of insur that the contract would be good only, requires necessity faith of the assured ance and not of knowing obviated insurers, permit and to insurers prove it. continue to receive new disposes ap- sufficiently of all The above contract, ” decline benefits from while assignments adversely pellant’s error bear its burdens.’ The of the court its contentions. 719, Agency, 718, we Mechem on From is affirmed. below following: quote the Affirmed. general rule, unbroken settled an “It is a agent, authority, an that notice to current when acting scope within the of his am to a matter over which his and in reference BONDING principal. thority extends, is notice to the This (No. 5567.) McCURDY. CO. v. two theories. The first is bas- rule rests ed on the cipal, identity agent prin- legal (Court Appeals of Civil of Texas. San Antonio. agent, keeping in the fact while 2, On Motion for Re- Feb. 1916. scope authority, is, the the as to within hearing, 8, 1916.) March it, within for the time matter embraced principal of the rule that it is the to his himself, ego the or at all events the alter Filing—Ex- <§=>40 Exceptions, 1. — Bill principal. The other is based Time. tension duty to disclose extending An order time to file bills of ex- principal knowledge notice or filing ceptions previously be one be made after the time for necessary may possess, and which is for the expired, has whether the court guidance. duty principal’s protection or terms are more or less than 8 whose performed, presumes the law to have weeks. imputes principal whatever notice or knowledge has in fact disclosedit or not.” possessed, cases, Exceptions, whether he [Ed. Note.—For other see of, Dig. 57-64; Dig. Bill <§=>40.j §§ Gent. Dec. provisions policy hereinafter Competency—Trans- copied appel Witnesses <§=>143 inserted for the benefit of — — with Decedent Assi&noe action lant, it, could be waived Claim. by it, by receipt were waived and reten assignor claim, of a on which ex- past-due premium by tion of is, sued, under St. art. ecutrix is Rev. testify against prohibiting duly it, either who was authorized to receive decedent, the other to transaction with knowledge of the fact that it had not been competent testify assignee, as he required by the time the con testify suing himself, if would be to claim. tract of insurance. gerald, Insurance Fitz Go. v. App. 1 White W. Civ. Gas. Gt. sec. cases, Witfiesses, Note.—For other see [Ed. 619-624; Dig. Dig. Equitable Ellis, <§=>143.] 1347; Dec. §§ Life Assurance Co. Gent. Digests Key-Numbered and Indexes in all other oases sea KEY-NUMBER dS=>For y. & BONDING- CASUALTY INS. CO. McCURDY GENERAL pany and another. From Liens 3. Mechanics’ ©=271—Enforcement —Petition. defendant, appeals, the named and liability by seeking to establish Petitions plaintiff complains in favor gen- subject liens, mechanics’ reason of eral giving part. alleging demurrer, interveners. Reversed date of nor the amount notice of Beasley Beasley Daugherty, & and J. Ed unpaid price at the contractor contract time of appellant. Beeville, Dougherty all of & for notice, amounts paid Dougherty, to him. Jr., Tarlton, B. D. Bon- H. S. cases, see Mechanics’ Note.—Eor other [Ed. ham, Gayle Robinson, W. G. and G. C. Dig. Dig. 494-513; Liens, Dec. §§ Gent. ©= appellee. Beeville, for 271.] Appeal Overruling 4. and Eeeoe ©=501 — MOURSUND, January 27, 1913, J. On EXCEPTIONS. DEMTJRKER — McCurdy subject de- and L. W. a into Whether entered question error, is a fundamental murrer that building contract, whereby Pranks exceptions immaterial provide perform to work, materials and overruling appear in the of such demurrer do not building completed, and deliver transcript. liens, Appeal 1, $10,445.- eases, 1913, free of all 35, June [Ed. and Note.—Eor other see Dig. 2300-2305; Dig. Error, §§ Gent. Dec. ©= to be in installments certifi- 501.] architects, Stephenson cates of the & Helden- oe cent, 5. Frauds. Statute ©=143—Pebsons fels, per but 20 to be until retained Whom Statute is Available. building and being defense of statute frauds days personal one, thereafter. Pranks bond executed a and not against interveners, cannot be invoked favor guaranteeing performance faithful who defendant contract, with the. General plain- was tiff and interveners. to the contract between Casualty surety. Insurance Mc- Curdy 19, widow, died on June and his cases, Erauds, [Ed. Note.—Eor other see Stat- Dig. 344-350; Dig. of, ute will, §§ Gent. Dec. who ©= was the sole devisee under his 143.] qualified independent July, executrix in Principal Surety Liability 1913. 6. and ©=82 — —Extent—Building- Contract. building accepted completed and building The owner of a cannot on default by McCurdy September on of the contractor make $2,081.15 time the sum of remained contractor, enlarging due ity, liabil- material, unpaid or make contracts labor and to Pranks. Some time after and hold the contractor’s bondsman liable there- Heldenfels, architect, 20th F. W. who for, except provided by building contract personally supervised the construction of or bond. up building, in order a state- cases, Principal [Ed. Note.—Eor other see Dig. 127; Surety, Dig. job, Gent. § Dee. ©==>82.] ment of final condition of the to arrive at what Franks on build- owed Rehearing. On Motion for labor, went around and 7.Appeal and Eeroe 3=854 —Review—Rea- person- talked of Franks’ to each creditors sons eoe Decision. ally got they had “a statement of what judgment being correct, though A for a dif- way court, building.” ferent reason than stated should be this affirmed. more than the ascertained that owed cases, Appeal [Ed. Note.—Eor other see and portion on hand would Error, Dig. 3403, 3404, 3408-3424, Gent. §§ satisfy. September 1913, the attor- On 3427-3430; Dig. ©=854.] Dec. neys telegraphed for the estate of Principal Agent Agent 8. ©=157— Casualty Bonding & Insurance the General Two Parties —Oontract. just building been informed One who is both of a building owner, by ap- tractor and proving of, which, cannot architect a contract $2,081.15 building, there was he made with la- $3,876.26 Franks, Franks, in claims due materialmen, deprive borers and any right, making $1,795.11 of self. as one cannot contract with him- a difference (cid:127) a lien on the cases, Principal [Ed. Note.—For other see company this immediate and for the Agent, Dig. 588; Dig. Cent. § Dec. ©=157.] telegraphed reply A attention. same Principal Surety 101—Release certainly ©= “Architects as follows: Surety —Alteration of Oontract. prorating funds custom of know the usual A material alteration of the contract Acting upon reply, building Hel- building on hand.” left contractor and owner will release the contractor’s 9th, bondsman. September prorated denfels, cases, Principal [Ed. Note.—For other see and $2,081.15 among of Franks various creditors Surety, Dig. Dig. 169-180; Cent. §§ Dec. ©= probably one, (all in- whom, save suit) paying approxi- in this terveners cent, Appeal debt, Court, County; mately per District of 'his Bee 53% Ohambliss, Judge. F. G. would file liens the creditors formed Action Elizabeth of their claims executrix balance McCurdy, deceased, against of W. O. credi- them. Most of the clerk, county Casualty General Insurance Com- filed statements tors Digests <gc»For Key-Numbered Indexes cases see same in all KEY-NUMBER seeking materialman’s Francis Michot $14.- fix mechanic’s or sued for a balance of material, 21 for Burrows Hardware Com- the statute. lien under pany, material, $23.22, De S. I. Franks after The claims $18.69, pletion inter- Loach for two for labor. The first alleged suit, briefly, were as follows: had notice to Franks in this veners (1) and of the items amounts and Bros., lumber and Heldenfels by material, prosecuted days other J. 0. their claims within 90 the accrual Wood, assignee Hel- thereof, and that them with each of filed $1,139 33 denfels Bros. county the said time. De Loach’s clerk a account within verified Plumbing (2) Windmill & allegation notice 132 23 Oo. material. (3) (4) Woodruff,hauling... 90 81 223 and Noble O. B. filing and of the of account was the same as French, bricklaying. 53 two, except alleged he that he Michot, (5) a. Francis labor gave days They 30 notice and filed account material.$14 and b. after the accrual indebtedness. Company, 23 22 material alleged along estoppel lines Loach, plas- S. I. De c. pleaded by French, well 18 69 terer . others, (6) her F. W. the expressly Homer Botts and. laborers, totaling. 105 26 claims promised their claims. Slusser, Botts, Interveners Homer L. J. $1,709 71 . Total Nolan, Boss, Davis, E. Clarence John J. represented a bal- of the claims Each one Ahasoy, Canada, Click, M. Fer- J. J. E. Pete pro rata of its due after ance part Sauseda, Tally, nandez, Don Dan Oscar Ben- $2,081.15 September on the fund of nett, Book, re- E. F. Baldwin sued to J. and 9th. labor, for cover small amounts due them completion of the time after Some Manufacturing and the Beeville building suit instituted this They up- supplies $3.93, for furnished. sued Bonding Company, against Franks express agreement the owner on an allegingi had that certain of the claimants alleged estoppel also property filed liens reason same title, others and that a cloud on stituted other interveners. could that were liens or had valid be Plumbing The Beeville Windmill liens, that she and into converted pe- $132.23, pany Its for material. sued for agents husband, well as their her deceased allegations as that contained the same tition of faithfully representatives, prom- exception obligations imposed plied the owner is relied on. ise on the building contract, and that them Bros., Wood, assignee of Heldenfels J. paid. price She had been entire contract alleged $1,139.33 due sued recover balance delay prayed the facts as to the furnished, alleging same for material validity of all claims and that the determined, French facts as intervener for for that she have showing estoppel, and also and liens such claims the amount were O.W. from contra* and resulted valid pay for such F. W. Heldenfels that he would liqui- fault, $105 that she recover tor’s dated building. furnish as said material delay damage for in the construction for use This inter- to be erected $53.81, C. E. French sued Intervener general alleged notice in the same vener also as a brick mason. him for work balance due way as intervener French. September 11, 1913. was filed His account peti- of such Plaintiff’s answer days alleged accrual within 90 He of and consisted of tions of intervention gave he notice to indebtedness every demurrfer, special exceptions, denial of amounts and items special reply allegation, material alleged that original He also the indebtedness. on of the balance the division effect plaintiff’s as admitted had petition, lien by agreement between was' made hand though lien, even and that he had unpaid claims, and holders of and all price, because exceeded the cost agreement, was a that French permitted him to continue estopped part, accepted therefore and is insolvent, knowing was that Franks setting up further claim from plaintiff. paid exceed the cost would and that the price. alleged further that she She promis- alleged was that he He also the full contract build- agents ac- that his of the owner ed faithfully complied ing, she had perform- performed and to be count for labor building contract, obligations all and ed paid; not have that he would ed would performed any judgment prayed was render- that if if it had not been said labor she her for amount that promise. judgment against Franks and the a' & Woodruff sued for Interveners amounts and for the sum for such hauling material $223.96 balance of delay. She asserted: $105 allegations leveling Their are the dirt. “(a) liable in That if she madeherself n way of the manner in which she dis French. on account as those of CO. & v. McCURDY BONDING- burscd the fund of acting struction ing; fect of his contract.” to terial fended ed tract with tion ited that Franks it the amount of more than tried in to the claim holders Heldenfels promising tofore ly granted has ment were made after the time had furnishing contended that under the overruled. The arose Company perfected appeal. form tion Mrs. weeks, cases after which Franks, $105 additional der the statute granted was in effect a rendered in tracted before case overruled competent court Hamill W. No was doing, ‘furnish and extend the time favor exception order Company. theretofore must to decided portion while entering aAt of facts out jury under its instructions McCurdy, concerned, to file Bonding Company, be liable to and in surety; the v. for; in vacation. who plaintiff should reimburse her courts whose term is less than additional entered upon of sufficient, Samuels, the claims Franks; orders former his breach was default order of the statute placed weeks; agreements foreign (b) into did favor of each testify contended that such was that had failed to bills of time bind the pay’ such a the statute had expired, and that damages that if she had deceased. ground demanded. plaintiff’s the claims was not the construction of the performed $2,0S1.15, claim was entered. extending against been frauds; Supreme for all given by resulting interveners, upon although that as to the statements of Bonding given. were unenforceable un- Nocona Bank but if the answer, she had of the contract arising even to strike exception whose against plaintiff, granted, be of this term a mo Tex. the same construc persons, extensions following facts, in F. W. that exercised liability of interveners. relating then the while it denied though Court held that and and direction law or his contract because out of promises Judgment in the release faithfully per- agent liability expired, delay, term of the case of such the labor and suit, out power given expired motion actively That time within such orders with a as motion was to the con- time there Heldenfels and state 133 S. W. the Bond- sums and material. building; payment previous words in was the bills We Bonding term the con- to cases she Franks, against Bolton, shown; the ef- far result- failing build- made long was must lim- was that was to and tract was made lást ma- de- by fels, who, as of be of nished theory therefore agreement ing sued; balance Curdy ten notice of their claims that and therefore she became recover on made W. O. in the er rectness of the Heldenfels which instituted cover ed ble as between ting firm of Heldenfels as 3090, signee concerning McCurdy aer every Bros, parties testify interested as tical claim, a the persons mony represented v. one, but, courts, Court statute “So the Intervener Wood had practical based to J. Wood Franks, executrix Brotherton, doubted coming find no architect, a debt for testifying as if the The court the purposes, judgment against R. S. 1911. be held that person such should not have been free himself that that when of Heldenfels judgment, by to such transactions who was as assignment said: deceased named while was deceased, before the material was furnished should have J. C. object in addition to by plaintiff. Upon as considering Heldenfels liable to an case Heldenfels within the thereof. construction such as will whether statute is to long finding of the will W. O. who well promise alleged made also acted of owner,, McCurdy, agreement herself ruling him, would result the amounts awarded them 62 Tex. upon person can, by assigning Wood, assignee, directly this testimony concluded parties testifying defeated plaintiff paid $1,314.87 be extending claims to have a contract which for all the Bros., Intervener is based. W. Helden- transactions F. to claim Heldenfels of the court that September 9, suit, Bros., sought abolished. court was a member of the of Bros, be reason of Bros, been Heldenfels Bros. As W. Heldenfels’ testi remains the statute, act, excluding parties order to the suit as Elizabeth purview we will first consid the court in admit challenges in which liable to after this suit was by allowing be alleging made Heldenfels point, inhibition of the that W. and. was testimony is based on the testimony upon wore entitled ease of it, the record.” given F. purchase primarily admitted. Wood, Bros, having Franks, for all transactions will of objected capacity before get but believe of article testimony the nugatory, may to recov supervis the 'Supreme law, effect Simpson the cor deceased express O. Mc- assign him to a con as W. one Bros., alone, effect writ prac good well fur lia she re as- to O. it that claimed. pany fels- App. 542, ed because buy upon illegal suit tion of of defendant out court shows that the not of the mony. testimony the further to bution was Wood arose pany, Francis pany, maining cite in addition to the case above balance on hand must be diversion of a price unpaid and said denfels be dismissed was gations the contractor. Wells claim of Heldenfels subject W. 828; S. W. were and of such averment clusion to entitled cited. of intervener all Hagendorn, As the [3,4] well the fund was allege any subject prejudice deprive amounts sued following notice, or of amounts from such Bros, prayed looking contractor of granted, the claim was because sought under the in its relying but even and S. I. De 452; distribution right The same notice as the further conclusion that the re- ers C. E. them the to appears interveners were entitled to recover to share Miehot, Hobbs, as Franks Whitfield v. claim, It is to 122 S. W. 905. the effect that said claim court erred support pay pleadings illegal, to establish 155 S. that the suit Duncan v. from a contract on to in an to petitions purchase to the any request bn W. O. filed a and to Wood’s cases: Wood. of the Heldenfels general if it had giving firm, large portion them.” mechanic’s true that this fund for object the contractor improperly that it Bros. Such may that Burrows Hardware independent demurrer of did but have been Loach defendant, not secured or the showing Tex. Civ. motion dismissal was not alleged, event Anglin Barlow, suggested our petitions, be Diffie, Whether a to demurrer. contain to praying was secured follows were dismissed Herder, been, McCurdy’s in claim. The order claims, notice to the suit, funds, said of declared distribution of the conclusion that the parties attempted be dismissed intended thereafter lien Bonding and cases therein occupy brought asking nor is a such fact would that the said improper because of the aver at the which motion App. 375, statutes, but suit payment, excluded, that general that Helden- but in by is there question “who were mentioned, tions are claim. Tenison erroneous, expressed so far as Tex. Civ. only by Wood, that purchas- into the the con- to fund to petition part time of appear grant- owner could distri- plead as to with- testi- Com- cases therein 45 S. posi- were workmen or such 326; Hel- date or alle lien fundamental any fail ment but not we of which claims the It to or the bond itself. v. lect part upon tain of pany answer exceptions rer do not Windmill with plaintiff San recovery tract, plaintiff. pany, binding statute of the claims made the De affirmed as claims cover are dence fails to disclose to what findings promises agent Bonding Company Plaintiff did not and we think clear fore tects, provide such Company, any theory pleaded by him, as between that fuse to upon by against plaintiff adjudged Miehot, duct the cost [5] The the claim material, or days’ Loach partially contract between Antonio or failure of been if defense or We regard interposed cannot invoke the statute any promise by parol. the verbal if such labor J. C. Wood cannot of the court with of frauds upon arises behalf neglect made in written can be sustained as to such to come only question authorized to do pointed which was not a frauds, W. owner undoubtedly and Homer Botts et appear in McCurdy estate, contractor should at debt interveners. The pay thus against Plumbing Company the contracts made error, materials, under the is a all sums which to interveners’ estate would cited. debts original undertakings thereof that Bodeman, entirely then to the must be reversed. interveners. McCurdy, plead original We therefore notice to the should be at giving and contends overruling personal one, has the out. promises. writing, Bonding Company another, in to in supply plaintiff. F. W. The contract certified view the the statute of Franks, those of pay materials, it is immaterial sound, left to be considered such refusal behalf of those Constitution, transcript. City 163 S. allegations these contracts for behalf right Woodruff, be questions relating the claims of respect of as has any its claim and that others plaintiff may of such demur- sustained It we These furnishing conclude that contractor, sufficiency al. The provided liberty, to that Franks, any therefore no is, did not and Franks money are extent to invoke the and to de executrix, behalf behalf interven- hereinbe- plaintiff. provided terms of the con time some of Francis binding equally or frauds, conten the on the verbal one to unless think, archi when judg Com Com upon S. I. as to then that neg rely cer evi re be be of of CO. v. McCURDY <& BONDING- completed tiie turned and work. It contrac- due the to become thereafter or building. up contract; even locked No If the architects under the tor refusal, neglect, or notice all this was to Franks certify shall action, Bonding Company. ground for such We cannot under- is sufficient failure theory liberty the stand to terminate the owner can make what be at shall the owner com- and to claims due the con- employment contractor tractor, provides enlarging liability, thus ex- work, that: plete also etc. pect surety company responsible evidence be to be there shall time “If at established, which, if lien or claim for such be obtained liable, premises of the said promises. be said chargeable then which is promises, failed to make right out to retain shall the owner any payment due nify to become probably given due or claimants would have statu- completely indem- sufficient to an amount tory notice of their and then refused or claim. Should lien him work, do further pay- which event if prove after all be such claim there made, employ others, shall refund the contractor unable ments moneys be the latter the owner so, could have done and held the discharging any compelled lien Bonding Company additional ex- consequence obligatory premises pense. reasoning, though plausible, Such default.” of the contractor’s fallacious, justified the owner could subject provides is issued The bond surety incurring liability, conditions, following express pany’s. responsibility for all sums could be precedent right of be conditions promising fixed the owner hereunder: the owner to recover gives claims. keep, per- clear do, “(1) owner shall That the every, singular, right the mat- form each ters contract performed no such He owner. has specified things set forth and in said to make the claims kept, done, and the owner charges against and certain fixed himself exclusively at the time and in the by same, specified. promising pay but must manner as in said contract adhere “ by (2) surety tele- That shall be notified the only respon- contract under which he is gram city at its sent to it home office the actually sible for claims which liens any by Dallas, Tex., said breach of contract any under the law. It is true is principal, that he the the or act on the agent principal, involve a employes, obligations or or to incur the surety may for which loss be held Company, namely, can hold obli- hereunder, immediately liable after the occur- gations necessary for labor and material rence of such breach or act shall have come to knowledge duly ap- building. here, again, the pointed supervision or of his finish the But certain representative having representatives or justi- conditions defined in the contract must said contract. fy summary proceeding, and the own- “(3) voluntarily principal That if the shall comply contract, lawfully compelled er must with certain abandon said conditions. or be by operations by. the owner to cease thereunder undertook case owner to contract nonperformance by principal reason of the for material labor to finish the house any of the terms or conditions of said con- complying provisions without tract, surety right, then the shall have the option, sufficiently to assume the contract. If conditions said contract and to were bad same; complete and, or sublet if said con- justify McCurdy, through Mrs. the ever surety, then, shall tract be assumed as present Heldenfels, taking matters into was duly performed, any reserve, is contract hands, Bonding Company her payments, own moneys pro- deferred and all other paid prin- vided said contract to be to the at the same entitled notice under clause No. cipal paid surety shall be copied. bond, We hereinbefore conclude that time and under the same conditions as only Bonding Company not can the not be moneys terms thereof such would have been principal, judgments fully responsible per- to the formed had the contract obtained were obtained complete him. And if the owner shall against plaintiff, all contract, or relet the said then forfeiture upon promises, through her hut her provided shall not be against principal in said contract agent, Heldenfels, operative she has against violated con- surety, but reserves, payments, deferred bond, and all'other ditions of the contract and moneys provided in said contract which would Company is therefore released from principal, princi- had the liability thereon. pal completed said contract in accordance with terms, judgment its owner upon any credited far as so it awards claims surety.” plaintiff against favor sums in the Bond- reversed, Woodruff, ren- E.C. dered, against French, Loach, nothing Botts, take De her suit Homer and the oth- company. portions er quit laborers who Those intervened herein judgment whereby J. comple- Wood before same, Plumbing tion of to do Beeville Windmill & are refused further work, against plaintiff reversed, unless sums received awarded assurances paid, Heldenfels, would be and F. W. cause as to them in be- remanded. The owner, promised judgments Woodruff, half of the E. in favor of C. Noble and E. pay past Botts, the owner would E. Homer Dan C. L. indebted- Slusser, Bass, future, Talley, ness as well as that accrue Clarence Oscar J. work, Loach, Bennett, Baldwin, would return S. De E. re- I. Jno. 183'S.W.—51 her through pleading let ing, complains her Davis, Michot, taxed had making respects. pleadings in her behalf and conduct the case as it E. J. terveners frauds. should be reversed eda, except overruled. we do amend tion company, one stated firmed. our former ed. We Bonding that the case should be reversed as to all in- although for a different paragraphs fall rendition is authorized. but also appointed relating and that he continued to act as such court, findings under McCurdy’s that Heldenfels [8, 9] Much is make her legal right every opportunity for the verbal M. Book If the saw pay, as is shown E. J. evidence, statute of her, J. complain. Company’s such statute. She On Motion Fernandez, those therefore took so she would have which she judgments agent McCurdy in all matters The costs fit. On death. think pleadings E. opinion, facts, against 17 and 18 of his Mrs. Canada, assignments personal interveners, to make the own plea, Mrs. Click, will not be disturbed exceptional construction of to demand already McCurdy opportunity our from Mrs. found that Heldenfels was defenses, and, in her motion Company fight frauds would have to be but McCurdy. future by paragraph contentions with court, P’ete was not proposed of this Bonding Company J. privilege hardship far as defense which in the motion she refrained as it contrary, in the trial the cause Rehearing. finding accrued. contention might be the view that of error urge the Ahasoy, found, elected Bonding Company and is in no wages eases in which a reason than the of frauds. will be the interveners did not offer to findings court Nolan, Franks mak appeal excepted Manufacturing should be af opportunity Company, worked incorrect, it be as stated in prepare for rehear- to stand or hold apparently she remanded, Don Saus- whose concerned, statute of supported The trial 15 of his presented her case shown affirmed. court of in other of Francis correct, will respect elected plead- about after Appeal posi- fact, and as She be such in the contract. pleaded testimony. thorized ity to be made the trial court made unconditional red to When all the ed, which liens were filed. We had reference to the promises not less the right invested Heldenfels with Franks While the sidered, tracts estate, on which authorize the all debts doing an act in behalf of set out findings enfels made conditional balance on hand was distributed in 17th, could not ed. And the trial court change GREAT art. specified tract as doubtless true that crued and (Court Appeals est —Statute. The motion for exception. could have balances Under Vernon’s 4977, providing that on all is also which were based which he Mrs. Feb. ascertaining in the motion for be released judgments but these of Civil due, arid rate of in the seventeenth and EASTERN of Mrs. Bonding Company, regardless not, deprive —Jubisdictional this court insist to stand record fails 16, 1916. fact, contract, is DERSON. contended The conditional Mrs. Ebbob would accrue. testimony apparent March It is then the changed before by simply promising contract, interest is certain Appeals of highly .approved made not that Mrs. rehearing McCurdy, established attorney the sum were this court. promises Sayles’ <®=»54 were true that when the fund CASUALTY CO. himself, of whether permitted if Heldenfels instead to fix his claim promises Rehearing change conditional and were hereinbefore mention- apportioning He made this with said such material to show that Franks (No. 927.) 1916.) the contract so as purposes, promises that he testified he rehearing in his double permitted Mrs. conditional, house was Bonding Company — Ann. Heldenfels is con- capacity found, Texas. Amarillo. September, is overruled. payable Amount —Intee- But, of course. were authorized any power promises Coubt which had the pay, provided McCurdy certain of the about the contract. Civ. St. Denied promises up- rights, written con- upon by as he could Heldenfels’ ignored by eighteenth if he was as is related to the fund. to stand approval op when no complet- became in that change capac- Civil refer- Held- much filed AN au- ac- to of Key-Numbered Digests Indexes oases see same and KEY-NUMBER

É=s>For

Case Details

Case Name: General Bonding & Casualty Ins. Co. v. McCurdy

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Feb 2, 1916

Citation: 183 S.W. 796

Docket Number: No. 5567.

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.