*1 CO. v. FIDELTY. DEPOSIT & PAINT & CO. 3.W.) (226 plaintiff excepted gave garnished All which appellant costs of fund. and for tlie appeal against to this court. taxed here and in the court below are upon Bros., Incorporated. issued defendant and Heid recovery, which seeks and which introduced it reads as follows- Deposit Company Mary- Fidelity “The & of land, herein called considera- CO. v. FIDELITY & PAINT GLASS TEXAS premium, tion of of cents estimated and MARYLAND. CO. OF DEPOSIT & the statements are (No. 8294.) which set forth in the schedule of and which assured statements (Court Dallas. of Texas. of Civil accept- and makes ance warrants to be true Rehearing 23, Denied Oct. policy, agree: hereby of this does 1921.) Jan. “(1) indemnify To the Texas & Paint Glass Dallas, Texas, of state of making stipulation <&wkey;534 —Statute against called the from lia- loss void, days of within 90 for notice bility imposed by upon law the assured for indemnity policy im- applicable to damages caused bodily injuries on account of or death notice. mediate by any accident, by any and suffered art. Civ. St. Ann. person persons employed by or not assured fixing making stipulation, in contract yard factory, shop while within the in the or for dam- of claim which time within schedule, sidewalks, thereto or or other ages made ways immediately adjacent the the period shall sue thereon operation of the trade or business applicable void, to insured held not than 90 vision to provided injuries schedule, are suffered curring bodily or death indemnity policy, an the result accident oc- of insurer period of be- within the at twelve thereof. occurrence ginning day August, 1912, 1st noon of August, and at noon on the of 1st standard at the assured’s address County; Appeal Dallas District from forth above. set Judge. Foree, Kenneth “(2) To and defend in the name on behalf against brought of sured or juries assured as- Action groundless claim, to enforce a Com- against pany not, bodily in- for on account of defendant, Maryland. Judgment pany for of alleged suffered, or death or to have been appeals. Affirmed. and by any person employed suffered or designated places by preceding the trade the assured at the Dallas, Crane, for of Crane & operation paragraph, during Dallas, appellee. Hall, B. Albert schedule, in said resulting occurring during from an accident and Appellant ac- period RAINEY, inis force. C. J. alleging against tion “Schedule of Statements. issued, executed, made, and August, it policy of certain Name assured: Texas delivered Company. agreed & Paint Glass insurance, defendant in which Dallas, 2: Address of assured: from loss demnify plaintiff county, Dallas Tex. injuries bodily death imposed law corporation. is a 3: The assured by plaintiff employed by persons not suffered description of assur- “Statement 4: The yard shop, factory, while within business; trade location of each ed’s brought against suits defend and to yard factory, shop or where such business is or about person; that on average on; the estimated number carried employes engaged 24, 1912,. while in such trade October location, employed by each Reese, at tion policy force, who one employes period of such within said plaintiff, suffered following given in table: yard plaintiff, and recover- tory, shop Operations “Kind business: trade usual in the sum aed warehouseman, incidental to the business of money; $1,000, defend- which ordinary repairs making the work of same, and that to defend the ant buildings, plants equip- and alterations plaintiff necessary reasonable incurred certain used of their ment conduct expenses $1,153.72 in the sum of above. business as pol- “Estimated payment. De- from the date interest $3,000.00. icy: by general demurrer, gen- fendant per compensation: $100.00 “Premium rate special setting denial, plea, up eral $0.02. policy, stipulation, B, which re- premium: amount of $0.60. “Estimated quired immediately upon giving of notice of shop yard: “Location of each such Dallas, Texas. occurrence, A 1919, was not trial re- done. “Statement 5: Estimated -set on March 4 covers' the forth sulted topic Key-Numbered Digests cases see same in all Indexes ICEY-NUMB3SR ©soFor *2 (Tex. 226 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER 812 whatsoever, any suit, all allow- nature Defendant in short- the but cash, board, ances, store cer- in ly claiming therefrom, thereafter withdrew any tificates, merchandise, other credits liability therefor, by plaintiff’s no reason of employés engaged way, in trade or the of all poli- failure to with the clause car- statement as said cy requiring plaintiff notice from immediate- given by at the locations ried therein, the assured ly upon the Con- said accident. compensation president, vice of the treasurer, the ceding requir- that the the excepting secretary president, ing plaintiff give the to immediate notice was only described the complied statement 6. with under the state- Pursuant to above “Statement 6: precedent necessary plaintiff was a before following per- ment, weight recover, by to held entitled as excluded from the sons is authority appellate courts, and of our still employés. and office Drivers tion: question arises, Does such a clause con- operations sim- “Statement No 7: statute, prohibits travene our 4 con- ilar ducted described to those days? limitation than 90 except by assured, No as follows: Sayles’ Statutes, exceptions. non’s reads: insurance Of hinds “Statement stipulation any “No no- following table, car- the assured in any given damages tice to be claim for as by designates the name of such ries as precedent to the to sue there- company. valid, stipulation on shall ever be such unless liability: “Employer’s Yes. Boiler: Yes. reasonable; any stipulation fixing is such liability: -. Elevator: Yes. Public giv- the time within which such notice shall be liability: Teams: Yes. Work- -. General ninety days en at a less than shall be Flywheel: -. -. man’s collective: any void, and, required, when such is notice past company during the 9: No “Statement may given the any pany requiring stipulation be same to the nearest or to years the assured to issue to has refused three any agent other local convenient of the com- in statement insurance kind of same; provided, no that during company canceled no has person, a contract between period any sured, the as- issued to insurance corporation operating railroad, or receiver exceptions. except No as follows: 10: No railway, railroad, street or interurban an. during past company employé á servant claim years insurance to has issued two by employé or servant for except P. & G. U. S. follows: as by jury husband, person, received to the a entire 11: The wife, father, mother, child a or children of de- by employés of the assured all earned employé death, by ceased his or her caused year $-. last was December 31 (cid:127)the negligence aas condition liabil- to appli- signature to 12: The ity, shall ever be valid. In by accepted is cation for this preceding under this presumed the want of article it shall be signature: as his given, that has been unless pany, Assured. especially pleaded under company testimony whereof, has caus- “In oath.” president signed to be ed this binding secretary, upon authorized shall not the same but countersigned by duly until contract, Appellee, by terms of said company. agent , Warfield, attempts by limiting President. limit said contract to “Edwin Secretary. Hart, “Robert “Countersigned statute article of said the failure of said Clarksburg, Va., this plaintiff give to the notice a reasonable July, day Alexan- Alexander & 22d July 1, 1914, nearly which was Agents.” Duly der, Authorized years occurred, two said urged by time it only which was the first had been notified defendant was defense understand, pleaded As the failure of thereof. we failure it —was the claim give no- plaintiff immediate worked no jury ableness, and no pleaded etc., tice, It Reese. no said accident to is shown. unreason- employé provides not an but statute that such Reese was factory night plaintiff’s placed void time limitation is when less than 90 Agency, prescribed, contends Smith Detective watchman injured night investigated appellee on the of October and found out about Reese was immediately long taken from it had before notice from 1912. He was away plaintiff. remained he came back to the It failure notice in when seems six work, pleaded good tory no claim as this is held De de such cases and went July 1, weight authority damage until fense jurisdictions, majority notified of Reese’s as well as when citation, state; damages by appellate courts of the service of court suit for Mary being among however, notified them. of which said, Casualty being defendant; Ky. first Co. citation time 175 land opinion in an written As notified of S. W. waá damages by Talbot, cause Justice wherein said it for sociate Reese. CO, EIDELTY CO v. & DEPOSIT PAINT (226 S.W.) is reversed and rendered aganst the anwas action In said liable. held the court Rehearing. On writ of er case the Court just believe that ror. We On a reversed former of this term we *3 holding right, therein. judgment case, and we adhere and rendered the Church, par- reconsidering Methodist In the case of Walsh v. the contract doing, held that 173 W. S. ties we and have in so have concluded we erred of want judgment could make the defense concluded the should service, not liable affirmed, believing and that said shows the evidence damages, that article that vision of did not with Sayles’ apply. Statutes, giving Said relating Civil did case was submitted to of notice to the Commis accident, the case and it transferred as contract- Appeals, affirmed it. supported sion of which court ed which is Appeals among Amarillo great weight authority, of of said case the Court question notice, but the Com treated mission of are the cases of Travelers’ Hartford v. Co. of ignored it, Scott, com 218 S. and Walsh question Church, principle in that missioners did not decide case. an- 173 S. 241.W. exactly point nounced these two cases is case, think this court the case We decided v. with the this case. facts and decisive Co., Maryland Casualty Maryland Co. Robertson & decision Casual- correctly. ty 194 S. W. non’s Co. v. 194 W. on which strictly applies Statutes, founded, Civil our we do not now be- case, point, and we unable as it to this character of lieve was founded why ignore reason courts should a different to see state of facts those plain provision. The contract relates case. treating damages, rehearing granted, relates The motion for to claims of the trial court affirmed. to this case.
Texas Glass & Paint Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland
226 S.W. 811
Tex. App.1920Check TreatmentAI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.