Baggett v. Liverpool London Globe Ins. Co.

Texas Supreme Court

Baggett v. Liverpool London Globe Ins. Co.

277 S.W. 78, 115 Tex. 144, 1925 Tex. LEXIS 142

Texas Supreme Court·Decided November 18, 1925·No. Application No. 14219.·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The only thing absent from the copy of the application which was attached to the policy was the signature of Baggett. There is no contention that it was not in all other respects a substantial copy of the original application. Under the circumstances, the absence of the signature becomes immaterial. Baggett having offered in evidence all of the policy except the application, the whole was admissible when offered by the insurance company.

The Court of Civil Appeals having made a correct disposition of the case, the writ of error is refused.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The only thing absent from the copy of the application which was attached to the policy was the signature of Baggett. There is no contention that it was not in all other respects a substantial copy of the original application. Under the circumstances, the absence of the signature becomes immaterial. Baggett having offered in evidence all of the policy except the application, the whole was admissible when offered by the insurance company.

The Court of Civil Appeals having made a correct disposition of the case, the writ of error is refused.

Baggett v. Liverpool London Globe Ins. Co., 277 S.W. 78, 115 Tex. 144, 1925 Tex. LEXIS 142 (Tex. 1925).

Pincite

277 S.W. 78 (Baggett v. Liverpool London Globe Ins. Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.