Brown v. Ætna Casualty & Surety Co.
Decision Date | 04 December 1940 |
Docket Number | No. 2324-7539.,2324-7539. |
Citation | 145 S.W.2d 171 |
Parties | BROWN v. ÆTNA CASUALTY & SURETY CO. et al. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
This suit was filed in the trial court in the form of an appeal by the compensation insurance carrier, Ætna Casualty & Surety Company, from an order of the Industrial Accident Board awarding plaintiff in error, Pearl Brown, compensation for the death of Adolphus Brown, her husband, and the controlling question here is whether or not the case is cognizable exclusively by a court of admiralty of the United States. The case was submitted to a jury upon special issues, all of which were answered in accordance with the contentions of plaintiff in error. It was stipulated by the parties before the evidence was introduced that the question of jurisdiction might be taken up and decided along with the merits of the case. The case thereupon proceeded to trial on its merits, and after verdict was returned the surety company filed its motion to dismiss the cause and set aside the award of the Industrial Accident Board on the ground that any claim for Adolphus Brown's death came "under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States or of the state courts applying only the admiralty or common law, and precluding the application of the Workmen's Compensation Act of the State of Texas to such claim." Subject to the foregoing it filed a motion for judgment in its favor non obstante veredicto. Subject to both of the foregoing motions it filed its motion that the court disregard the jury's findings in answer to certain named special issues and enter judgment, after disregarding such findings, in its favor. Upon hearing of the motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction same was granted and the cause was dismissed. The other motions were therefore not reached. The trial court's judgment was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. 122 S.W.2d 261, 263.
The facts material to the question under review are few. Adolphus Brown was employed by Shippers Compress Company. He was used as a utility man to do anything he was called upon to do about the compress. The president of the compress company owned a yacht, "Sarnette," sixteen tons gross, eleven tons net, forty-six feet long, and twelve feet wide which drew four feet and five inches of water. It was licensed by the United States Government to proceed from port to port of the United States and was used to go out into the Gulf during the summer months. While the yacht was owned by the president of the compress company, it was used largely to entertain customers and prospective customers of the company. The company paid a part at least of the operating expenses thereof. In September, 1935, the yacht was brought up Buffalo Bayou and tied up for the winter at the compress company's docks on the bayou. In December thereafter there occurred an unprecedented flood in Houston. We take the following statement from the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, which was copied from one of the briefs filed in that court:
The question presented appears to have been settled contrary to the holding of the courts below. In a copius note in 25 A.L.R. the rule is deduced from the authorities at page 1035 that: "Where the injured person was employed under a non-maritime contract, state compensation acts, whether compulsory or elective, have been held applicable, whether the injury occurred on land, or on water within admiralty jurisdiction."
In a further annotation of the subject in 56 A.L.R., at page 356, that rule is reaffirmed. In 1 Am.Jur., Admiralty, Sec. 50, p. 576, the rule is stated in this language: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Emmons v. Pacific Indemnity Co.
...390, certiorari denied 282 U.S. 845, 51 S.Ct. 24, 75 L.Ed. 750. See 2 C.J.S., Admiralty, § 24. The case of Brown v. Ætna Casualty & Surety Co., 135 Tex. 583, 145 S.W.2d 171, 173, involved a suit under the Workmen's Compensation Act to set aside an award of the Industrial Accident Board. The......
-
Harold v. Carrick
...[1st Dist.] 1996, writ denied). The scope of review is limited to those arguments raised in the motion to dismiss. Brown v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 145 S.W.2d 171, 174 (1940).Analysis The "open courts" provision states that "[a]ll courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him......
-
Country Cupboard, Inc. v. Texstar Corp.
...merits of Country Cupboard's cause of action until those issues have been adjudicated by the trial court. Brown v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 135 Tex. 583, 145 S.W.2d 171 (1940); Binz v. Harwood, 297 S.W.2d 210 (Tex.Civ.App. Fort Worth 1957, writ Reversed and remanded. GUITTARD, C. J., no......
-
Coakley v. Reising
...the causes to the trial court with instructions to reinstate the causes for trial upon the merits. See, Brown v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 135 Tex. 583, 145 S.W.2d 171 (1940). REAVLEY, J., not ...