*1 534 drug capsules tion of and a full the seconal days notice

only after ten Burns, provid- owner, store and filled that the statute Mr. Nevada hearing”. Under a the prescription Hillis practice question Mr. for a license for ing cancellation upon Garner’s absence. far as the evidence causes So certain surgery for medicine or shows, by prescription upon filling service of this complaint and filing aof sworn knowledge full Burns was a without charge and Garner’s notice of the of written stated consent. These facts Board it and circumstances and fair trial before themselves, it not of that state nor when considered by Supreme of that Court evidence, with based be facts sufficient revocation was essential complaint. show by negligence, unfitness reason of charge contained contemplated as by Board (c) State Subdivision Kassabian v. ex rel. State ap- 327. statute. Nev., agree P.2d Neither can Examiners, 235 we Medical pellee’s contention, effect, Garner’s that con notice opinion the In our conviction in the federal court for 4542a, by Article templated offense of refilling prescrip- a barbiturate the licensee notice to Section inchtdes tion illegal constitutes a conviction for the license that the cancellation by sale a drug contemplated narcotic he should also that considered but be Subdivision (g) of A barbi- this statute. against him. charge be informed of the turate is not a drug. narcotic Words 28 Board before the hearing in a A licensee Phrases, 20; Narcotic, page Article inquiry may right to have waive his 725b, Sec. Vernon’s Ann.Penal Code. he is which matters with limited to the provision There is no for the cancellation Physicians and Sur charged. pharmacist’s of a ground C.J.S. on license must geons p. But waiver 900. § the holder refilling has been convicted of by circumstances clearly facts or established prescription. barbiturate party waive by an intention one showing judgment is reversed and the cause by the effect understanding and an to that is remanded. 488; Texas Asso other. 43-B Tex.Jur. Co., Tex.Civ. ciates Bland Const. v. Joe Ref.). No

App., (Writ S.W.2d order of in this case. The

waiver is shown that it is based

the Board does not indicate than that shown

upon any ground other notice. Most charge SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY obviously before the Board evidence COMPANY, INSURANCE Appellant, charge fact made. The directed to may also material of it have been some statutory ground for revocation to another al., Jesse G. Appellees. BOHLS et negligence reason such as unfitness No. 10490. show a waiver. does not Appeals

Court of Civil of Texas. it should be Even held if Austin. charge limited to the the court was June 1957. and of which notice Board before the made Rehearing July 3, Denied court could con given, and grounds showing other evidence sider Rehearing Motion for Second Overruled revocation, no substantial was still there Aug. 7, 1957. reasonably supporting the Board’s evidence license. The most revoking Garner’s order that Garner evidence is is shown por- large of a know what became

did *2 Austin, Meyers, Gay, Coleman R. James appellant.

for Cofer, Austin, Kuykendall, F. & L. Cofer appellees. ARCHER, Chief Justice. declaratory This is a suit for a judgment to determine the extent of provided by an liability automobile insur- policy by appellant ance issued to appellee Appellant sought G. Bohls. Jesse obligated a declaration that it was not policy the terms of defend by damage brought that might suit farm ac- arising certain laborers out of an cident, occurring August on or to pay any judgment might be recovered by appel- virtue such against suit wife, lees Erna G. Bohls or Jesse sitting Bohls. Trial was to court with- jury judgment out a and was rendered favor of the defendants. appeal

The one assignment founded on error and is that: Holding “The Trial Court Erred in Liability that the Automobile Insurance by Policy Appellant Appellee Issued Coverage G. Bohls Provided Jesse Respect Claims Farm Laborers Arising out of the Automobile Accident August 1955.” undisputed, The facts this case are and stipulation testimony oí consist a Bohls. Jesse stipulations August The on issued, policy obligating was Company pay within Insurance the limits policy all sums the assured might legally obligated pay become by arising damages, caused accident ownership pick- a certain up truck. The was for continuous term, renewed at six intervals months premiums by G. payment out Jesse Bohls, issued, new was ever no Bohls, premium notice paid premium insured, showing the date the if benefits pol- The force. therefor remained are whole either pol- payable icy policy. provided a Texas Standard to be *3 any all times icy under compensation and effect at in full force workmen’s law, (2) or employment by material to this cause. other insured.’ issued it was “That on the date paragraphs policy part “The contained a of material series of said order as captioned ‘Exclusions’ follows: which were provided following: “ company ‘No insurance issuing policy these writing forms for auto-

“ ‘Exclusions: mobile insurance in Texas the State of “ apply: policy does not ‘This issue, shall for motor vehicle insur- coverage Texas, ance the State of coverages, any of the “‘(a) Under any any contract policy of insurance or public used as automobile is while the except provided form as herein be to use is conveyance, unless livery such or A.M., April on effective and after 12:01 and described specifically declared Companies may is- continue to premium charged there- policy and sue supply present their current of for; policies (December 1, edition) while bodily injury death of “‘(d) « n domestic, Under any ^[*] to employee of coverages of or ^[*] sickness, employment, other n insured or A and disease or ^[*] insured C, n to preted missioner provided obsolete filed with coverage so by granted by the revised forms a letter of stating as to afford Casualty revisions interpretation Insurance any will policy be inter- broader Com- made there- if benefits domestic coverages. to the same In like payable to manner, are either or companies may interpret also any provided workmen’s outstanding policies prior written to compensation April 1, law.’ any so afford as to coverage granted by broader the re-

“IV. vised policy forms. use of these mandatory forms is on and after 12:01 “Subsequent to the issuance of 'A.M., August 1, 1955.’ paragraph I of described prior stipulation and to the this re- “Plaintiff Southern Farm Bureau policy by defendant, said newal of Company had, prior Insurance Bohls, by payment G. of the semi- Jesse to the August renewal on 1955 of the premium August annual due on policy of by Bohls described G. Jesse 1955, the Board Insurance Commis- I, paragraph changed printed its of Texas entered sioners of the State standard automobile April 1, providing that after an order forms in change accordance with the company 1955 no should issue auto- prescribed by the Board of Insur- policy unless mobile insurance ance Commissioners in wording wording paragraph (d) under the (d) ‘Exclusions’, Section whereby heading ‘Exclusions’ in said standard wording said section was policy form would read as follows: changed quoted by paragraph “ A, bodily ‘(d) coverage Under III quoted above to para- in this sickness, injury graph to or disease or death change IV. No on was made any employee arising of the insured pages face on the No. and in out of the course held Bohls, domestic G. and no Jesse question prime plain- As is set above issued policy was ever new applicableness is the any ma- effectiveness time G. Bohls at tiff Jesse policy, par- of the exclusions in suit, rider and no this terial containing ticularly (d): writing instrument other issued wording was ever any change of Injury coverages (Bodily A “Under G. Bohls at by plaintiff to Jesse (Medical Payments), Liability) and C suit. time material sickness, bodily injury to or disease any employee or death of the insured did Bohls defendant G. “The Jesse employment, while In- Texas Board of know that the *4 domestic, the or in changed insured had surance Commissioners employment domestic if benefits there- Texas wording of the standard the payable form, either or to policy and automobile provided any com- never workmen’s Bohls was defendant G. the Jesse pensation law.” ever plaintiff, nor did he the notified any kind or any receive notice of seriously It contended that any to this material character at time the order of the Board of Insurance Com plaintiff contended cause the that, directing in in missioners the future Insurance Commissioners the Board of policies issued, all as to exclusion respect wording any changed had in the employees engaged in the in- contract of of said defendant’s the insured should be ex revised so as to plaintiff.” surance injury any employee clude to arising out of 1955, August The accident occurred on and employment by in the course of Bohls, G. Mrs. Erna while wife insured, Dorothy applicable appellees, Jesse to Bohls, pick-up driving from the was Isaac or Roxie Burr. day’s Pflugerville, farm to after Bohls any No rider change or notice of in the Dorothy Isaac and had been done and work policy was ever Mr. Bohls. transported being Burr were Roxie continuous, premiums was and the partially truck overturned Pflugerville, the paid. Under was circumstances it were Dorothy Isaac Burr and and Roxie appellant. binding on See v. Moreland injured. Knox, Tex.Civ.App. Austin 268 S.W.2d ref. writ N.R.E. was Bohls testified that he G. Jesse brought had farming in and that he point We find no on the pickers his Pflugerville a from load of question of whether the farm laborers farm, pull with them to having made a trade employment” “engaged in were when per a hundred cotton on basis $1.25 injured. pounds from agreed to furnish ride farm, morning and eve- Pflugerville & Roofing Passmore Metal v. In Co. pickers those would make such ning, to who Co., Cir., 147 New Amsterdam “ rides; gave he instructions * * * F.2d excluded pickers begin side of the on one any employee while of the insured pick pick through rows field * * * of the insured business clean; pickers did not that he tell * * there said: The Court many work, what, or ex- how hours to accident Little periods; “At the time of the any control ercised as to rest any engaged in work and was to, was not quit but when wanted pickers any service for Pass- performing sundown; they quit generally about receiving any was not and he pickers, could more any had fired he never simply rid- pay time. He satisfactory. for his work was not have if the Pass- ‘engaged Pass- business’ of place in the' of work to ing from the gratui- conveyance more.” shop in a more’s * * * by Passmore. tously furnished court Other cases are cited support decision. of its clause “Moreover, exclusion * * * business, ‘engaged in the being between We see no valid distinction materially differs insured’ insured” “engaged in the business course ‘arising out of and clause employment” of being “engaged ‘en- employment.’ The word insured. Barnett In action. gaged’ connotes It is farm workers Co., supra here obvious Life Ins. Merchants’ court, were for their performing service 272], the 208 P. Okl. [87 employer injured. fact, when he construing clause by furnish- performing a service for them military naval engage ‘shall transportation. ing their war,’ held that the in time service and that action ‘engage’ denotes word *5 the farm' We conclude that since by perform- part to take it means employ their laborers were not duty. ing some ment, appellant is liable under its Co., York Life Ins. Head v. New “In and bound to defend the suit. 520, Cir., 517, this court 10 43 F.2d judgment Trial Court is is,defined and ‘Engage,’ Words said: affirmed. 188], fol- Phrases, page as at A. [14 ‘ “Engage” : means take lows Affirmed. in, employed however in or embark ^[196] as follows: may business; arise;’ ‘To “engage” is to and at take a part; page HUGHES, Justice. On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing self; employ involve one’s deciding purpose of We assumed for the and effort.’ devote attention employed the farm laborers this case that pull em- Bohls to cotton were his Mr. doubt, particular under certain “No necessary to- ployees. It for us was not would be no factual situations there laborers were em- decide whether such employee either was or doubt that the contractors, ployees independent as con- engaged in not the business clearly by appellees, because we were tended But, case, employer. in a borderline they opinion “engaged were not presented, here we think such sup- employment” injured. when In construction rule of strict port of this conclusion we cited the Pass- applica- legitimate clause exclusion has case. more Clearly, the exclusion clause here tion. ambiguous less involved contrary by appellant to the are Cited military ‘engages in or naval clause Casualty Lumber Mutual Ins. Co. of New ‘arising clause and or the service’ Stakes, Cir., 571, 4 164 F.2d York v. employment.’ To in the course of his Campbell v. American Farmers Mutual Supreme Court Okla- former the Co., Cir., 8 238 Insurance F.2d applied the rule of strict homa has carefully latter the rule We have examined these cases construction Hence, we as some the authorities cite liberal construction. as well hold,' light many distinguishing are features constrained to and there decisions, differently them, that Little such as worded ex the Oklahoma clauses, provisions the time the accident not at clusion

539 primarily etc., Providence policies, questions Washington Ins. Co. v. fact Proffitt, local law of 150 Tex. these cases turn 239 S.W.2d and the originated Court reiterated in this States rules in which the suits language: in from this local law seems to stem arising under surance cases but “It is a settled rule in this state that Act, 45 Liability Employers’

either Federal policies interpreted of insurance will be seq., Workmen’s U.S.C.A. 51 et or State § liberally and construed in favor of Statutes, Compensation Ann.Civ. Vernon’s strictly against insured and the insurer. seq.;1 St., complete A art. 8306 et United Service Automobile Ass’n v. analysis authorities thorough of all these Miles, 1048; 139 Tex. 161 S.W.2d rewarding be would statutes not be Co., Wood v. Southern Tex. cause we are convinced that no Civ.App., dism.); (writ 270 S.W. 1055 requires decision construction p. It also sec. 29. Tex.Jur. con clause to coincide with exclusion exceptions well settled that and words Compensa struction of our Workmen’s strictly of limitation will be construed suf least tion Statute. There are at two against Fidelity the insurer. American the stat construing ficient reasons for Inc., Casualty Co., Williams, & Tex. (1) same ute and exclusion clause the Civ.App., (writ 34 S.W.2d ap construing the one are rules ; dism.) Washington Norwood v. Fidel wording is plicable to the other their Co., ity Tex.Civ.App., Nat. Ins. different. ; (no history) S.W.2d 842 writ 24 Tex. *6 poli- construing for insurance The rules 704, certainly p. 28. sec. We will Jur. thusly: cies are stated liability write a limitation of into none where exists.” principle insurance “It is a settled of decisions, law, many in laid down The rule for construing our Workmen’s suscep- language of which is Compensation Statutes in Federal is stated than of more construction tible one Surety Ragle, Tex.Com.App., Co. v. 40 S.W. interpreted strictly against be should 2d as follows: liberally of in favor the insurer p. 24-B 104. .the insured.” courts, rule, as a general “The have Tex.Jur. compensation the a lib- statutes provisions for in the case of “As purpose eral construction. The of the forfeiture, exceptions and words of away do law was to with the issues of exception in an limitation the nature of accident, risk, negligence, assumed con- strictly against construed the in- tributory negligence, and other like is- import surer, especially if of uncertain n sues, provide and to further reasonably susceptible to a double n construction.” recoverable p. 24-B amount be free of 102. Tex.Jur. 1. ly. .a panies. icies pensation Cir., various various a case tion exclusion clause policy, In Gotlin “It question We 190 differs injuries involving cases claimants Wording F.2d should acts v. Court said: should have slightly surprising differ Maryland involving 249, the which in a set employees against even 251, and the facts interpretation many aside at once the liability courts workmen’s com- more provoked litiga- 50 A.L.R.2d of going this have important- insurance kind of Co., of the to or found of an com- pol- 73, 9 49 Acc. fort on Mo. Co., here. See cases the course pensation A.L.R. this eases returning [Beem ^[1044] A.L.R. point 150 Comm., involve the 1053.” ^[316] from work H. D. Lee Minn. act. 85 S.W.2d [Stansberry for collection of ^[446] of the 199 Cal. 319; They 1, of 454; entirely [Pattiani v. employment. 183 the Mercantile arose are not 441] v. Monitor Stove 63 A.L.R. courts to N.W. justifiable of the 250 decisions on 100 A.L.R. Industrial of and in in 977] Co., P. These bring point com- 864] 469; ef- 20 “engaged employer and em- uncertainty. employment” Both within the old exclusion ployee injured. were dissatisfied clause when expen- system litigation, which In addition to quoted from in Passmore injuries compensation for sive. The original our opinion we desire cite and employee longer founded to an is no quote Behner, Eliott v. 150 Kan. upon negligence the fault or P.2d case upon broader employee, but is awarded bodily injury excluded any employee “to rule has This more humane rules. assured, except household servants industrial part of the become a chauffeurs, while engaged any busi- by modern economic created structure occupation ness or of the The assured.” class development. This conditions and Court said: rule broad legislation rests “ ** * is entitled injured workman It will be noted that compensation injury sustained order for exemption apply El- regardless industry, the service of an liott must not em- have been an fault question negligence ployee assured, but he must also Supreme has part. Court on his Our have been killed while engaged he was rule announced sound humane occupation business or Act Compensation that Workmen’s assured.” which should ‘a remedial statute is The Court further said: ac- liberally with a view construed complish purpose promote and to its “It is clear that every one who is en- ” justice.’ gaged in the occupation business or the assured employee would be its clause of language exclusion every employee here, “any employee policy, pertinent occupation business or of the assured em- insured while ** * all the time. In this El- case ployment.” liott had eight finished work for hours *7 county. the trip The home in the truck provisions How of different the our was no employment. He Compensation Art. Workmen’s Statute. paid nothing for it and could in ride 8309, V.A.C.S., provides “The term the truck or not as he saw fit. He was ‘injury employ- in course sustained the performing no county service for the ment,’ Act, shall include” as used in this not * * * riding. when thus In the injuries include certain named but “shall place, second transportation the could every injuries all other kind char- ‘implied be an condition of the contract having originating acter do with in employment,’ and still Elliott would work, business, profession the trade not be in the ‘business or oc- employer employee the received while cupation’ of county when he was engaged in or furtherance of about the killed.” employer affairs or whether business of employer’s premises or elsewhere.” Elliott, holding The was that killed while home, riding was not within the exclusion These two observations seem obvious. clause. The in farm laborers this case were clearly employ- within the course of their To the Scheper, same effect is Francis v. within the of our meaning ment Workmen’s 326 Mich. 40 N.W.2d This 216.3 Compensation injured.2 (2) directly point. laws It case when in There the trans- necessarily portation does follow that were to and from home in the em- Employers’ speaking 2. Fritzmeier Ins. 3. In cases and those Ass’n, by appellant 131 Tex. S.W.2d cited in the Court Getlin v. us “We before think the record consideration part of the ployer’s car was painter. shows that in the work connection with aas employee’s services for the city un- Phillips, it way giving home. injured on employee was The give employees transportation dertook to him free policy excluded The insurance city place from work Court bams to the The employment.” “engaged in the fully “The dis- city return. The had not liable said: holding in the insurer charged that truck obligation until the can employment,’ phrase, ‘engaged had arrived at the barns.” active meaning, fairly construed as he paid employed and plaintiff was the work support The state- cited to cases to do.” Compensation Workmen’s ment were indicated, which, we do not believe as above Appellant here asserts that our decision interpretation of the controlling to be Falls City with Wichita conflict policy. exclusion clause in an insurance Co., Tex.Civ.App. Fort v. Travelers Ins. employee We have no doubt but that the cor. writ dism. Worth 137 S.W.2d injured in City of Wichita Falls was judgm. Work- employment under our course of his The Court Compensation men’s Statutes. City employee this case an of the assumed, it did apparently there transported city injured in a being while question, that inclusion discuss city barn. working truck after to the hours ex- necessarily mean such statutes would Employees assign- gathered work there for policy. For clusion under the delivered morning ments in were agree that we do not reasons above stated day’s there after the The work was done. this is correct. employees’ job cutting weeds. judg- approved the Supreme Court The language clause the exclusion Upon what City Falls. ment in of Wichita was that the involved way no have know and ground we do not apply employee as- did not to “an of the know wheth- knowing; hence we cannot sured while business Certainly we in conflict. er our decision is opinion According assured.” by the anything said do not conflict Phillips’ city (em- “argued Court the Un- opinion. Appeals in its of Civil Court day ployee) work was over at believe we do circumstances der these injury, time of his a mile and that he was the decision follow we are place or more he had our where remain convinced that We that case. *8 injured, opinion worked when he was and therefore is correct. original not, injury, at time of the the em- overruled. The motion is city.” (Italics ploy In over- ours.) overruled. ruling Motion this contention the Court said: transportation Maryland Casualty Co., is not Cir., 196 F.2d uations accepted may job; or not it 50 A.L.R.2d said: surprising employee and it is not “Another class cases which coun- holdings during such trans- heavily find sel have labored this case employee portation employees, are situations in which at the however, here, occupation. Even day’s work, of a termination speak ac- with one do not transportation gratuitous authorities their em- ployer place cord.” back to from which day. working started their In these sit-