120 S.W.2d 355 (Ark. 1938), 4-5185, Home Insurance Co. v. Lack

Docket Nº:4-5185
Citation:120 S.W.2d 355, 196 Ark. 888
Opinion Judge:MEHAFFY, J.
Party Name:HOME INSURANCE COMPANY v. LACK
Attorney:Luther H. Cavaness, for appellant.
Case Date:October 17, 1938
Court:Supreme Court of Arkansas

Page 355

120 S.W.2d 355 (Ark. 1938)

196 Ark. 888

HOME INSURANCE COMPANY

v.

LACK

4-5185

Supreme Court of Arkansas

October 17, 1938

Appeal from Marion Circuit Court; Garner Fraser, Judge; reversed.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Luther H. Cavaness, for appellant.

OPINION

Page 356

[196 Ark. 889] MEHAFFY, J.

W. C. Wilbanks was the owner of a Plymouth car, and the appellant, Home Insurance Company, issued a policy of insurance covering loss and damages to the car as a result of accidents and collisions.

The appellees were the owners and operators of a truck which collided with Wilbank's Plymouth car, causing damage to the same.

The Home Insurance Company and W. C. Wilbanks filed their complaint in the Marion circuit court in which it was alleged that the Home Insurance Company was a corporation engaged in the business of insuring automobile owners against loss and damages to their cars as a result of accidents and collisions. The Home Insurance Company is duly licensed and authorized to do business in the state of Arkansas; that the Home Insurance Company was the insurer of one 1936 Plymouth four-door automobile, the property of one W. C. Wilbanks as evidenced by its policy then effective and outstanding, having been issued by the said Home Insurance Company. It was alleged that on July 13, 1936, W. C. Wilbanks was driving his car in a lawful manner with due caution and circumspection and with careful regard to the rights and safety of others; that a truck driven by appellees negligently struck Wilbanks' car and damaged it in the sum of $ 200; that the Home Insurance Company was forced to pay $ 125.24 as part damages to the Plymouth car, and that W. C. Wilbanks, plaintiff, suffered a loss and damage to the amount of $ 74.76, in excess of that paid by the insurance company, making a total damage of $ 200 suffered by plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs asked judgment for $ 200 and all other relief. Afterwards the appellees filed a demurrer and answer. The court sustained the demurrer, holding that the [196 Ark. 890] Home Insurance Company was not a proper party to the suit, and ordered the name of the Home Insurance Company stricken from the complaint. This appeal seeks to reverse the judgment of the lower court holding that the insurance company was not a proper party to the suit.

Appellant argues that the demurrer was...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP