Fidelity Union Fire Ins. v. Bickerstaff

249 S.W. 539
Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided February 21, 1923·No. No. 2083.·Published

Opinion

BOYCE, J.

The opinion in cause No. 2027, Fidelity Union Fire Insurance Company v. Mitchell, 249 S. W. 536, handéd down this day, disposes of all the material questions raised on this appeal, except that presented by the eleventh proposition. The policy contained this clause;

“Loss, if any, payable to J. E. White, mortgagee, as his interest may appear, subject, nevertheless, to all conditions of this policy.”

Appellant asserts that there was fundamental error in the judgment because J. E. White was not made a party to the suit. A similar question was considered and decided against appellant’s contention in the case of Camden Fire Insurance Co. v. Wandell (Tex. Civ. App.) 195 S. W. 289. We think that decision is correct. The mortgagee may or may not have had an interest in the proceeds of the policy at the time of the loss, and could not recover without an affirmative showing of the extent of his interest. If appellant wished the issue tried out and disposed of, it should have made the mortgagee a party in the court below. In addition to authority already cited, see Staats v. Georgia Home Insurance Co., 57 W. Va. 571, 50 S. E. 815, 4 Ann. Cas. 541; Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance Co. v. Cargill, 44 Okl. 735, 145 Pac. 1134; Joyce on Insurance, § 2305.

Affirmed.

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

Fidelity Union Fire Ins. v. Bickerstaff, 249 S.W. 539 (Tex. Ct. App. 1923).

249 S.W. 539 (Fidelity Union Fire Ins. v. Bickerstaff) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Liverpool London Globe Ins. Co. v. Cargill
1915 OK 483 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
Fidelity Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Mitchell
249 S.W. 536 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1923)
Camden Fire Ins. Ass'n v. Wandell
195 S.W. 289 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1917)
Staats v. Insurance Co.
50 S.E. 815 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1905)