Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Del Rio Wool & Mohair Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Del Rio Wool & Mohair Co.

81 S.W.2d 826, 1935 Tex. App. LEXIS 418

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 10, 1935

DocketNo. 9561.

StatusPublished

This text of 81 S.W.2d 826 (Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Del Rio Wool & Mohair Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Del Rio Wool & Mohair Co., 81 S.W.2d 826, 1935 Tex. App. LEXIS 418 (Tex. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

BICKETT, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal by the Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance Company, appellant, from a judgment for the sum of $794.64 and interest in favor of Del Rio Wool & Mohair Company, appellee, upon a motortruck cargo policy of indemnity insurance issued to J. W. Bonner.

Certain wool, the property of appellee, while being transported 'by motortruck by Bonner, was lost by the overturning of the truck in the flood waters of the Nueces river near Uvalde on June 30,1932. The policy covered such contingencies or perils as those causing the loss of the wool. Appellant through an adjuster negotiated a settlement of the claim under the policyand appellee executed and delivered to appellant a release reciting payment to appellant by appellee of the sum agreed upon. Appellant’s adjuster sent the settlement check to appellant’s local agent. This agent, having obtained the in-dorsement of Bonner, the payee", upon p the check, did not mail it to appellee, as he stated •his company instructed him to do, but cashed it himself and embezzled the proceeds.

A shipper, a carrier, and the carrier’s indemnity insurer having agreed upon payment of a certain sum to the shipper in settlement of a loss covered by the policy, the cause of action of the shipper against the insurer is upon the contract of settlement. Corsicana Warehouse Co. v. North River Insurance Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 288 S. W. 137.

Therefore, the question as to the propriety of the joinder of the insurer as a party defendant, as was condemned by this court in Cannonball Motor Freight Lines v. Grasso (Tex. Civ. App.) 59 S.W.(2d) 337, is beside the mark.

Irrespective of whether appellant’s local agent acted within or beyond the apparent scope of his authority, appellant has not performed the settlement agreement under which appellant was obligated to pay the agreed sum to appellee.

All of appellant’s assignments and propositions are overruled.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

BICKETT, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal by the Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance Company, appellant, from a judgment for the sum of $794.64 and interest in favor of Del Rio Wool & Mohair Company, appellee, upon a motortruck cargo policy of indemnity insurance issued to J. W. Bonner.

Certain wool, the property of appellee, while being transported 'by motortruck by Bonner, was lost by the overturning of the truck in the flood waters of the Nueces river near Uvalde on June 30,1932. The policy covered such contingencies or perils as those causing the loss of the wool. Appellant through an adjuster negotiated a settlement of the claim under the policyand appellee executed and delivered to appellant a release reciting payment to appellant by appellee of the sum agreed upon. Appellant’s adjuster sent the settlement check to appellant’s local agent. This agent, having obtained the in-dorsement of Bonner, the payee", upon p the check, did not mail it to appellee, as he stated •his company instructed him to do, but cashed it himself and embezzled the proceeds.

A shipper, a carrier, and the carrier’s indemnity insurer having agreed upon payment of a certain sum to the shipper in settlement of a loss covered by the policy, the cause of action of the shipper against the insurer is upon the contract of settlement. Corsicana Warehouse Co. v. North River Insurance Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 288 S. W. 137.

Therefore, the question as to the propriety of the joinder of the insurer as a party defendant, as was condemned by this court in Cannonball Motor Freight Lines v. Grasso (Tex. Civ. App.) 59 S.W.(2d) 337, is beside the mark.

Irrespective of whether appellant’s local agent acted within or beyond the apparent scope of his authority, appellant has not performed the settlement agreement under which appellant was obligated to pay the agreed sum to appellee.

All of appellant’s assignments and propositions are overruled.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 S.W.2d 826, 1935 Tex. App. LEXIS 418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/springfield-fire-marine-ins-co-v-del-rio-wool-mohair-co-texapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack