Lewis v. Independent Sch. Dist. of Austin

161 S.W.2d 450, 139 Tex. 83, 1942 Tex. LEXIS 208
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 25, 1942
DocketNo. 7847.
StatusPublished
Cited by46 cases

This text of 161 S.W.2d 450 (Lewis v. Independent Sch. Dist. of Austin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lewis v. Independent Sch. Dist. of Austin, 161 S.W.2d 450, 139 Tex. 83, 1942 Tex. LEXIS 208 (Tex. 1942).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Sharp

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This action was instituted by C. H. Lewis against the Independent School District of the City of Austin and others for an injunction against the purchase by the officials of the district of a policy of fire insurance from The Millers Mutual Fire Insurance Company of Texas, incorporated under the laws of Te_xas. On trial to the court upon an agreed statement of facts, the injunction was denied. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. 147 S. W. (2d) 298. This Court granted a writ of error.

The Independent School District of the City of Austin will be referred to in this opinion as the School District, and The Millers Mutual Fire Insurance Company of Texas will be referred to as the Insurance Company.

The sole question here presented is whether the Legislature, by the enactment of Article 4860a-8, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes, could constitutionally authorize the School District, a political corporation, to purchase a policy of mutual insurance.

The following facts were agreed to by the parties to this suit: Plaintiff is a resident property-owning taxpayer within the School District; the Insurance Company is a mutual insurance corporation, which has no capital stock, its fund coming *85 from the purchase of insurance by its members; the Insurance Company was incorporated under the laws of the State of Texas, and no question is raised as to its standing with the Insurance Commissioner of this State or as to its financial stability; because the Insurance Company has a surplus in excess of $100,000.00, the Board of Insurance Commissioners has recognized its right to issue, and the Insurance Company has proceeded to issue, nonassessable policies.

Article 4860a-l, et seq., Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes, relate to mutual insurance companies, and prescribe the method of incorporation, the nature of the policies they may issue, and the details of the operation of such companies in this State.

Article 4860a-8 reads as follows:

“Any public or private corporation, board or association in this State or elsewhere may make application, enter into agreements for and hold policies in any such mutual insurance company. Any officer, stockholder, trustee, or legal representative of any such corporation, board, association or estate may be recognized as acting for or on its behalf for the purpose of such membership, but shall not be personally liable upon such contract of insurance by reason of acting in such representative capacity. The right of any corporation organized under the laws of this State to participate as a member of any such mutual insurance company is hereby declared to be incidental to the purpose for which such corporation is organized and as much granted as the rights and powers expressly conferred.”

Article 4860a-10 provides in part as follows:

“Such a mutual company may issue a policy without a contingent premium while, but only while, it has a surplus equal to the capital required of a domestic stock insurance company transacting the same kinds of insurance * * *. If at any time the admitted assets are less than the unearned premium reserve, other liabilities and the required surplus, the company shall immediately collect upon policies with a contingent premium a sufficient proportionate part thereof to restore such assets * * (Italics ours.)

Acting through its Board of Trustees, the School District proposed to buy, and the Insurance Company agreed to sell to the School District, a nonassessable policy of fire insurance, to *86 cover certain school property within the district, at a price within the premium rates fixed for fire insurance rates generally by the Board of Insurance Commissioners. The policy has been delivered, but no payment has been made therefor. It is agreed that the Board of Trustees will pay the premium for such insurance, unless restrained by court order.

The by-laws of the Insurance Company, which are referred to and made a part of the policy of insurance, provide in part as follows:

“Sec. 2. THE OBJECT of the company is to transact the" business of insurance as authorized under the charter of the Company and the laws of the State.

“Sec. 3. who are members. Each person, firm or corporation having a policy in the Company shall be a member thereof during the life of his policy, and no longer. (Italics ours.)

“Sec. 4. Each policyholder shall be entitled to one vote, to be cast in person or by proxy executed and filed with the Secretary of the Company not less than one week prior to the meeting at which such proxy is used. (Italics ours.)

* * * * * * *

“Sec. 6. the ANNUAL meeting of the members shall be held at the Company’s office in the City of Fort Worth on the third Tuesday in January of each year, for the transaction of general business of the Company and the election of Directors. Special meetings of the members may be called by the President or by three Directors on twenty days’ written notice to the members.

“Sec. 13. LIMIT OF LIABILITY. The liability of each policyholder of this Company is limited to and by this By-Law fixed and determined to be the amount of deposit premium specified in his policy, unless the member be insured by a combination policy issued by a group of mutual fire insurance companies wherein the assured accepts, contingent liability or unless the member resides in a State which requires and provides for contingent liability. In such instances the contingent liability’ shall be for an amount not to exceed the amount of premium or premium deposit specified in the policy and, if called upon, *87 shall be for the exclusive use of the holders of the contingent policies.

* * * * * * * *

“Sec. 15. deposit premium. Upon the issuance of the policy a member shall make a deposit with the Company (termed a Deposit Premium) and upon termination of the policy the deposit will be returned, after deducting therefrom any amounts that may be due or accrued from the member. The Executive Committee may fix that chargeable to any class or classes of policyholders, determining this with equity between the class and the Company.

“Sec. 16. guaranty fund. If at any time this Company shall be dissolved or cease to transact the business of insurance, then whatever shall remain of said surplus or guaranty fund after payment of all this Company’s liabilities shall be divided and distributed to the policyholders whose policies were in force July 1, 1898, or whose policies were issued after that date, prorata, according to the amounts by them respectively paid for insurance on their policies.”

Section 52, Article 8, of our Constitution declares:

“The Legislature shall have no power to authorize any county, city, town or other political corporation or subdivision of the state, to lend its credit or to grant public money or thing of value in aid of, or to, any individual, association or corporation whatsoever, or to become a stockholder in such corporation, association or company.”

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

Related

Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 2014
Ex Parte Austin Independent School District
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000
San Antonio Independent School District v. McKinney
936 S.W.2d 279 (Texas Supreme Court, 1997)
Opinion No.
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1995
Winger v. Pianka
831 S.W.2d 853 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)
Elizabeth Ann Winger v. Eric Rodger Pianka
Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992
In the Interest of McLean
725 S.W.2d 696 (Texas Supreme Court, 1987)
City of El Paso v. El Paso Community College District
729 S.W.2d 296 (Texas Supreme Court, 1986)
Scott v. Abilene Independent School District
438 F. Supp. 594 (N.D. Texas, 1977)
Lecil Hander v. San Jacinto Junior College, Etc.
519 F.2d 273 (Fifth Circuit, 1975)
Wright v. Houston Independent School District
393 F. Supp. 1149 (S.D. Texas, 1975)
Opinion No. 69-239 (1969) Ag
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 1969
Brazos River Authority v. Carr
405 S.W.2d 689 (Texas Supreme Court, 1966)
Public Housing Admin. v. Housing Auth. of Bogalusa
137 So. 2d 315 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1961)
State v. Northwestern Mutual Insurance Company
340 P.2d 200 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1959)
Rio Grande City Consolidated Independent School District v. Guerra
291 S.W.2d 384 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
161 S.W.2d 450, 139 Tex. 83, 1942 Tex. LEXIS 208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-independent-sch-dist-of-austin-tex-1942.