Security Co. v. Panhandle Nat. Bank
| Decision Date | 31 May 1900 |
| Parties | SECURITY CO. v. PANHANDLE NAT. BANK. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by the Security Company against the Panhandle National Bank to recover proceeds of insurance policies. A judgment in favor of the plaintiff was reversed by the court of civil appeals (54 S. W. 916), and it brings error. Reversed.
Ashby S. James, for plaintiff in error. West & Cochran and R. E. Huff, for defendant in error.
The Wichita Roller-Mill Company, a Texas corporation, borrowed of the Panhandle Loan & Trust Company, another domestic corporation, the sum of $7,000, for which the former executed to the latter a bond secured by a mortgage upon its property. The loan and trust company sold, through a broker in Connecticut, the bond to the plaintiff in error, the Security Company, a corporation organized and domiciled in the latter state. The mill company having made default, the plaintiff in error brought suit upon the bond in the district court of Wichita county, and obtained a judgment for the sum of $8,806.36, together with a decree ordering a sale of the mortgaged property for the satisfaction of the debt. The Panhandle National Bank, the defendant in error, having a subsequent mortgage upon the same property, in order to prevent a sale thereof entered into an agreement with the plaintiff in error by which it bound itself to pay or cause to be paid all of the judgment except the sum of $7,000, and, the mill company being insolvent, to cause the $7,000 to be assumed by a new company, duly incorporated for milling purposes, and to be secured by a first lien upon the property originally mortgaged. Thereafter the Wichita Falls Milling Company (presumably, a new corporation organized in pursuance of the agreement stated above) executed to plaintiff in error a bond for $7,000, together with a mortgage upon the property before mentioned to secure its payment. The mortgagor in the instrument bound itself to keep the buildings upon the lots insured for the benefit of the mortgagee. The Panhandle National Bank executed a formal waiver of its lien in favor of the lien of plaintiff in error, but retained such lien against all other persons. On the 20th of August, 1894, two policies of insurance were issued upon the mill to the Panhandle National Bank, for $1,000 each,—one by the Delaware Insurance Company of Philadelphia, and the other by the Merchants' Insurance Company of Newark, N. J. On the face of each policy appeared the statement, "Loss, if any, payable to the Security Company of Hartford, Conn., as its interest may appear." It would seem that at the time these policies were issued the Panhandle National Bank had acquired the legal title to the property, with a view to transferring to the mill company to be organized in pursuance with its agreement with the Security Company. The property having been destroyed by fire, the plaintiff in error brought suit against each of the insurance companies on its policy, making the defendant in error and the milling company parties defendant. The insurance companies recognizing the liability, and being desirous of discharging it, it was agreed among all the parties that the money should be deposited with the Panhandle National Bank, to be litigated for by the plaintiff in error and the defendant in error in the two suits consolidated as one. The deposit having been made, the plaintiff in error filed an amended petition, setting up its claim to the consolidated fund. Upon the petition so amended, the case was tried, and resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Upon appeal, however, the court of civil appeals held that the plaintiff had been doing business in the state without having filed its charter, and obtained a permit as required by the statute, and therefore could not maintain action in our courts. Thereupon the judgment was reversed, and rendered in favor of the defendant.
It was suggested upon the argument that this court has not jurisdiction of this case, and this question is the first to be determined. The ground of the contention is that each of the suits, as originally brought, could have been brought in the county court, and that the consolidation of the two cases does not change the status of the case with respect to our jurisdiction. The case of Mohrhardt v. Railway Co., 2 Willson, Civ. Cas. Ct. App. § 323, is cited in support of the contention, but does not sustain it. There the plaintiff brought in the county court two suits for services rendered to defendant, over each of which that court had jurisdiction. The defendant moved that the two suits be consolidated, and the motion was granted. The plaintiff then moved that the suit as consolidated be dismissed, which motion was also granted. It was held that, since the amount claimed in the two suits exceeded the jurisdiction of the county court, it was error to consolidate them. Clearly, the court were of opinion that the jurisdiction of the court after consolidation was to be determined by the sum of the two amounts claimed in the suits as originally brought, and we concur in that view. Here the two amounts originally sued for together exceeded $1,000, exclusive of interest, and a suit therefor could not have been brought in the county court. We therefore have jurisdiction of this case.
The next question is, did the court of civil appeals err in holding that the plaintiff in error was disabled to sue in our courts by reason of being a foreign corporation, and of having done business in this state without complying with our statutes? The laws in question are found in articles 745 and 746 of our Revised Statutes, and, so much thereof as does not apply to the facts of this case being omitted, they read as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nabours v. McCord
...in the court below; otherwise he risked the hazard of a ruling by the appellate court against him upon that question. Security Co. v. Bank, 93 Tex. 582, 57 S. W. 22. The facts existing that authorized the Supreme Court to determine that the purchase by McCord was a fraud in law, and that ju......
-
Normandie Oil Corporation v. Oil Trading Co., 11011.
...Creamery v. Schultz, Tex.Civ. App., 69 S.W.2d 564. Authorities upholding the second one may be cited as follows: Security Co. v. Panhandle Nat. Bank, 93 Tex. 575, 57 S.W. 22; Nelson v. Detroit Co., Tex.Com. App., 56 S.W.2d 860; Jackson Woolen Mills v. Moore, Tex.Civ.App., 154 S.W. 642; Wils......
-
Philip A. Ryan Lumber Co. v. Ball
...a right to make the contract it is alleged was made. Articles 1314, 1318, Vernon's Sayles' Texas Civil Statutes; Security Co. v. National Bank, 93 Tex. 579 to 582, 57 S. W. 22; Lake View Co. v. S. A. Traction Co., 95 Tex. 258, 66 S. W. 766; Jackson Woolen Mills v. Moore, 154 S. W. 644; West......
-
Chittim v. Belle Fourche Bentonite Products Company
... ... Wyoming (1939). The Nat. Enc. Vol. 2, p. 78, briefly ... describes bentonite as follows: ... 746, Rev. St. Security Co. v. Panhandle Nat. Bank, ... 93 Tex. 575, 57 S.W. 22. The purchase of ... ...