Texas Indemnity Insurance v. Middlebrook

114 S.W.2d 226, 131 Tex. 163, 1938 Tex. LEXIS 282
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 16, 1938
DocketApplication No. 23362.
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 114 S.W.2d 226 (Texas Indemnity Insurance v. Middlebrook) 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
Texas Indemnity Insurance v. Middlebrook, 114 S.W.2d 226, 131 Tex. 163, 1938 Tex. LEXIS 282 (Tex. 1938).

Opinion

Per Curiam :

This per curiam is written in view of the statement in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals (112 S. W. (2d) 311) to the effect that there is “confusion existing * * * in the Supreme Court” in that Vestal v. Texas Employers’ Ins. Assn., (Com. App.) 285 S. W. 1041, and Southern Surety Co. et al. v. Arter, (Com. App.) 44 S. W. (2d) 913, are in conflict. In the case last cited this Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals dismissing the cause, but not for the reason that the award made by the Industrial Accident Board was not such final award as would support a judgment in a suit to mature same. The judgment of dismissal was affirmed on the ground that the “Southern Surety Company of New York, admittedly not a party to the proceeding before the Industrial Accident Board,” was not an interested party, within the meaning of the compensation statute providing for a review of awards made by the board. The question upon which the Vestal case was turned by the Court of Civil Appeals, that is, whether the award itself was an appealable order, was not reached by this Court and was not decided because not necessary. There is therefore no conflict between the opinions of this Court in the two cases above named. Both are correct.

The opinion in the Vestal case controls the disposition of the present case, and the Court of Civil Appeals was not in error in following it, and holding the present award a final one. ■

The opinion in Pollack v. Pollack, (Com. App.) 39 S. W. (2d) 853, has no application in this case, which is governed by the statutes discussed in the opinion. Application for writ of error is dismissed — “W. O. J.”

Opinion delivered March 16, 1938.

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

Related

Jones v. Illinois Employers Insurance of Wausau
136 S.W.3d 728 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004)
Texas General Indemnity Co. v. Strait
673 S.W.2d 334 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1984)
Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Dryden
612 S.W.2d 223 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1980)
TEXAS EMP. INS. ASS'N v. Dryden
612 S.W.2d 223 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1980)
Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Clapper
605 S.W.2d 938 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1980)
Twin City Fire Insurance Co. v. Cortez
576 S.W.2d 786 (Texas Supreme Court, 1978)
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Reina
441 S.W.2d 622 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1969)
General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation v. Hames
416 S.W.2d 894 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1967)
LeJeune v. Gulf States Utilities Company
410 S.W.2d 44 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1966)
Travelers Ins. v. Dickson
160 F.2d 167 (Fifth Circuit, 1947)
Southern Underwriters v. Yocham
140 S.W.2d 341 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
114 S.W.2d 226, 131 Tex. 163, 1938 Tex. LEXIS 282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/texas-indemnity-insurance-v-middlebrook-tex-1938.