*1 (Tex. REPORTER 204 SOUTHWESTERN 468 plaintiff partially paralyzed caused the to be TRAV ORDER OF UNITED COMMERCIAL incapacitated and otherwise him that he so OF ELERS AMERICA DOBBS. v. totally period eight (No. 7850.) was disabled for a of days; weeks and all the five that disabilities (Court Appeals Dallas. of Civil of Texas. by plaintiff Rehearing, sustained and suffered the in said 9, Feb. 1918. On Motion for April 13, Re- Motion for hemorrhage, 1918. On from fall resulted the cerebral Second. hearing, 29, 1918.) June hemorrhage brought which said was caused or — @=>451(1) by about such accidental fall. Insurance Accident Insurance —Exemptions—Cerebrau Hemorrhage. policy provides indemnity against The for policy covering bodily in- Under an accident injuries through bodily the results exter- of juries through external, violent, or accidental nal, violent, or means. Under accidental the exempting means, for though liability and the insurer from disability by hemorrhage, exemptions, provides cerebral caused it as follows: by means, caused accidental in- where any “The benefits shall not cover or extend to accidentally fell, striking sured his bead and conditions, following by of the whether acci- rupturing brain, causing in a blood vessel his not,” setting exemp- dental means or tions, among out said hemorrhage, partial pa- which cerebral caused things, other hemor- “cerebral ralysis disability eight weeks, for and a total rhage.” though could not recover from the insurer he the appellee The accident to caused “cerebral disability. proximate cause of accident was the hemorrhage” paralysis pro- from which was Cbunty Court; Appeal A.T. from Dallas duced, disability and from which resulted to Judge. Work, appellee; demnity liability hence in- there is no for against by the Or- Action William J. Dobbs appellant’s part, exempt on it as is Travelers of Amer- der of United Commercial by policy. therefrom the terms of the There judgment plaintiff, From for defendant ica. appeals. ambiguity language policy, no is in of the the and rendered. Reversed intelligible comprehensive, which is and and Smith, Robertson, Dallas, Robertson & of appellant evidently exempt is from the result Townsend, appellant. Dallas, for appellee J. N. of for hemorrhage by of cerebral an caused acciden- tal means. taxing penalty attorney’s The of a for fees RAINET, brought O. J. This suit was to against error, company the insurance was as policy or recover on a certificate of accident company said is its not liable on contract. by appellee. appellant, insurance issued Appellee to showing liability, judg- The evidence no the alleges that of the contract insur- appel- ment is reversed and here rendered for provided payment injury for ance for of loss lant. by alleged caused was caused to accident. He also he that Reversed and rendered. fall, striking his the head ground or some hard substance which made Rehearing. On Motion for abrasion, causing hemorrhage, an and from which cerebral After a reconsideration of our former hold- paralysis resulted and he ing appellant in this case to the that effect eight was disabled -weeks. policy is not liable on its of insurance and re- Appellant general by demurrer, answered judgment versing rendering it, and for we general denial, specially and for npnliability have from concluded the current authorities accident, policy duly exempt- such an as the holding in in that we were error that the by following provision: ed it from such the exempt language policy in the was such toas “Benefits under this article shall not cover nor* n n the appellant, company, insurance under the any death, disability to extend or loss any responsibility shall nor such benefits cover extend to of or from circumstances for the following by the cidental means or conditions whether caused ac appellee. of the accident to result ** * not, to wit: Cere undisputed The evidence shows that the meningeal spinal hemorrhage. bral or or disability appellee eight of lasted for weeks “through days, external, five caused vio and judgment A trial in resulted a verdict and provided by lent or accidental means” as the against company, ap- the insurance an and policy. general policy The was a accident peal by was taken it. inju policy expressly insuring against bodily plaintiff The evidence showed that the was death, resulting disability, etc., in but ries watering garden plants his flowers and as express stipulate by language against not does liability home, was his custom when at and while so bodily might injury which re for engaged entangled his feet became in a water hemorrhage. having in sult cerebral Not and, hose, attempting straighten in to out express language used emption, to note the ex some hose, plaintiff tripped said himself and was general insurance the clause will be ground; thrown to the that as a result of the binding, company plaintiff’s li insurance ground fall held and the struck the head or support proposition great other of we cite violence, hard able. Bryant In this substance with causing Co., 582, Casualty an S. external and v. Tex. 182 visible mark in- of 107 ; jury ruptured 675, 1916E, 945, 1918A, the blow on his head a R. A. Ann. Cas. L. blood W. brain, causing Hunter, 517; in vessel orrhage his a 30 Tex. cerebral Insurance Co. v. Civ. hem- 489, 798; hemorrhage App. : the cerebral W. Insurance Co. 70 S. v. was caused by 104; App. Garvey Harvey, independently said accident alone and Ill. v. Insur 129 of causes; Co., App. 106, Supp. hemorrhage all other the Div. 108 N. Y. cerebral ance 123 topic Digests Key-Numbered other oases same see and and Indexes in all ifeEor KEY-NUMBER *2 Tex.) JOHNSTON JOHNSTON v. 469 518, Association, 86 N. for the Wis. 57 accident. But after a more 186: Hall v. careful Ass’n, App. 366; Mo. of 84 reconsideration reached exempt the W. Summers v. Aid authorities we have the Commercial conclusion Goodes v. Order United that clause does 605: said 330, appellant America, App. liability the Mo. 156 from Travelers of 174 and that 995; wrong holding we were in it did not. To S. W. Moon v. Order United Commercial that illustrate, mainly 65, one of America, N. W. the cases on Neb. 146 relied Travelers of 1037, 96 by 1916B, holding 1205, exemption us for (N. S.) said clause was L. R. A. Ann. Cas. 52 sufficiently ap- comprehensive Co., exempt not 222; Ohio to Insurance 77 Rheinheimer v. pellant 245; liability 360, 491, (N. from S.) was the case of Insur- L. R. A. N. E. 15 St. 83 Hunter, 303, App. 489, ance Co. Omberg 909, Ky. v. Association, W. 30 Tex. 40 S. Civ. 70 v. 101 brought S. Rep. 413; Cary W. 798. In case Insurance that suit was on Am. v. 72 St. policy 1055, exemption an accident Co., (N. 67, that no L. R. A. had Wis. 106 N. W. 5 127 clause, case, 997, 926, Rep. as in S.) this and the conclusions Am. 7 Ann. Cas. 115 St. applicable Alexander, there 484; reached were correct but not Ga. Accident Ass’n 104 v. 709, here. 939, E. L. R. A. 188. 30 S. 48 opinion We are of company claiming exemp- the that we in erred The insurance is granting appellee secondary rehearing, grant intervening a and now tion on account of an appellant’s rehearing cause, hemorrhage, motion for return of when the loss and that was original holding reversing to our by paralysis, an and render- caused external resulted from which ing judgment appellant bodily injury the in proxi- favor of which was the disability. mate causa of the Hunter, In the case of Insurance Co. v. (No. 1984.) JOHNSTON v. JOHNSTON. supra, where Hunter was in an acci- insured (Court Appeals policy against death, of Civil of dent “the Texas. evidence dis- Texarkana. 6, Rehearing June 1918. Denied injury rheumatism, produced closed that the 27, 1918.) June therefrom, and that heart trouble followed < n ^>35(2) — Agreement Buy 1. Trusts [resulted] and death from heart trouble.” to Land. court, Bookhout, The late Mr. said: then of this plaintiff agreed Where defendant and to jointly acquire nish all the by land, certain defendant to fur- produced money “If repaid the rheumatism which the death to and be thereafter by of plaintiff, defendant, Hunter taking was not caused an in- accidental in the title in his jury, company liable; name, then the is not if but own an held undivided one-half interest by such plaintiff. rheumatism was caused the accidental in trust for the benefit of injury, and was a link in the chain of but mere — Tenancy Redemp- @=»19(1) 2. in Common death, causation between the then accident and by tion One Tenant. attributable, disease, the death is but not to the general rule, redemption aAs the of the the accident alone.” to property by common, common one tenant in by accomplished acquisition appellee’s disability whether the of the In this case the is at- by purchase property incumbrance or the of the appellant injury tributable the the to and is sale, at a foreclosure of the will inure the to benefit policy. liable on its joint owners. support The authorities cited above the Tenancy Redemp- — <®=sl9(5) 3. in Common principle by Case, in announced the Hunter to tion One Tenant —Contribution. property tenant the A who redeems common adhere, grant which we the motion and for a right an has a from incumbrance to contribution rehearing judgment affirm and the of the co-owners, his as between him from and and de- trial court. faulting but is closed extinguished, the lien is not cotenants may kept benefit, alive for his and be fore- upon the failure of the co-owners re- to Rehearing. On Second Motion for time, the imburse him a reasonable within and sitting redeeming subrogated At a former in this term of we court tenant becomes to the rights original of the lienholder. judgment ap- reversed and rendered the pellant for 4. Trusts Subsequently <®==>362—Enforcement—Defenses. in this cause. we agreed acquire joint two heirs title Where to granted appellee’s rehearing motion for and property, they in an interest as to which had judgment affirmed the of the trial court. by thereon, heirs, purchasing mortgage a fore- property, by closing buying pay- upon appellant it, Now we are and in the and called to the ing each of the other heirs for his or her $40 reconsider that action and to reverse and interest, acquire property by the fore- and did in render its favor. purchasers closure, right other to to the of one of the point given The at issue has us consider- compel the make a the division of property, presented able title had been taken in the trouble. Both to which counsel have name, by pay was not affected failure to other’s arguments exhaustive and able briefs and each, since other $40 heirs the heirs other .the and are to be for commended their zeal and complain of such failure. alone could reconsidering efforts. After the issue involv- Court, Appeal from District Cherokee reviewing ed and further the authorities Guinn, Judge. County; L. D. presented, we have concluded the last that against by B. D. E. J. Johnston Action placed upon construction we have the con- plaintiff, judgment de- for From Johnston. supported by tract is not the of trend authori- appeals. Affirmed. fendant ties, e., clause, i. exempting appel- the that Shearon, lant rhage.” from the and Thos. all result of Perkins “cerebral hemor- Perkins & Norman, appellant. comprehensive Rusk, is not broad Shook & and for of enough exempt appellee. appellant Rusk, liability Gibson, to for from of Digests Key-Numbered <g^>Por topic and cases Indexes other see same in all and KEY-NUMBER