Ætna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Love

Decision Date07 December 1938
Docket NumberNo. 2185-7216.,2185-7216.
PartiesÆTNA CASUALTY & SURETY CO. et al. v. LOVE et al.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

This suit was instituted by Tom Love, and his two sisters, Victoria Houston (a feme sole) and Cora Davis (a feme sole), against Ætna Casualty & Surety Company and Ætna Life Insurance Company, for damages on account of the wrongful dissection and mutilation of the dead body of Orange Love, their brother. The nearest relatives of Orange Love, at the time of his death, were the plaintiffs and a brother, Jim Love, who died a short time later. It is alleged that the defendants unlawfully procured an autopsy on the dead body and that the body was dissected and mutilated in the conducting of the autopsy. The Ætna Casualty & Surety Company was later dismissed and the case against the Ætna Life Insurance Company proceeded to trial. The trial was before a jury, but at the conclusion of the testimony, the trial court instructed the jury to return a verdict for the Insurance Company, and judgment was entered accordingly. Tom Love and his sisters appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals and that court entered judgment reversing the judgment of the trial court and remanding the cause. 99 S.W. 2d 646. The Insurance Company applied for the writ of error which was granted.

It appears in testimony that the Insurance Company was the carrier of Workmen's Compensation Insurance for the San Antonio Compress Company. On June 12, 1933, Orange Love duly presented to the San Antonio Compress Company, as provided by the Workmen's Compensation Law, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. Art. 8306 et seq., a claim for compensation because of certain specified bodily injuries alleged by him to have been received in lifting a bale of cotton, at the Compress Company's plant, on October 15, 1932, in the course of his employment with the Compress Company. He also filed a copy of said claim with the Industrial Accident Board. Thereafter, on June 15, 1933, Orange Love died in San Antonio and his dead body was sent to a negro funeral parlor in San Antonio, where it remained pending the arrangements for the funeral which occurred on June 25, 1933. In the meantime, on June 21, 1933, Tom Love and his two sisters duly presented to the Compress Company their claim for compensation on account of the death of their brother, Orange Love; and also a few days later filed a copy of said claim with the Industrial Accident Board. The injuries alleged in this last mentioned claim, as causing the death of Orange Love, were the same as those which the latter had alleged in the claim made by him. On June 22, 1933, the dead body of Orange Love still being at the said funeral parlor, Judge Shook, a justice of the peace at San Antonio, telephoned Dr. Goodson, the County Health Officer of Bexar County, and ordered him to make an autopsy of the dead body. Dr. Goodson, in pursuance of said order, proceeded on the same day, with the assistance of Dr. Stout, to perform the autopsy. In performing the autopsy these doctors cut open the dead body at various places and removed therefrom, for the purpose of examination, various bodily organs. They found that Orange Love had received no bodily injuries at all, from violence to his person, but that his death was caused by chronic glomerular nephrites.

In respect to the matter of liability of the Insurance Company for damages, the Company, in its application for the writ of error, presents a group of assignments of error which relate to the action of the justice of the peace in ordering the autopsy. The gist of these several assignments is to the effect that the testimony conclusively shows that the Insurance Company is not responsible for the act of the justice of the peace in ordering the autopsy. In this connection, it is contended that the evidence shows conclusively that C. E. Klein, the claim adjuster for the Insurance Company, did not wrongfully procure the autopsy order since the undisputed testimony of Klein shows that the latter simply laid before the justice of the peace a full, fair and truthful statement of all the facts concerning the cause of the death of Orange Love, so far as same had come to the knowledge of Klein in making investigation of the compensation claim which had been made, and that the ordering of the autopsy was left by him entirely to the discretion of the justice of the peace. The only testimony bearing on this subject, which appears in the record, is that of Klein himself. Except by the presumption of regularity of the action of the justice of the peace in making the autopsy order, the cause of that officer's action, and the circumstances in respect to which he acted, appear from the testimony of Klein alone. The latter's testimony in this respect is set out below:

"I said I went to the Justice of the Peace about this matter. I went to him to give him the information that our investigation had disclosed. As to what investigation I made, the man (meaning Orange Love) alleged that he had sustained an injury on a certain date, and the investigation did not even disclose that he had been working there at that time on that day, or that he had ever received an injury there. They were claiming that he died as a result of the injuries and our investigation did not disclose that he got hurt at the plant. I went to the justice of the peace to give him the information I had. At the time I laid the facts before the Justice of the Peace I did not know...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Davis
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • 16 Diciembre 1942
    ...James, 73 Tex. 12, 10 S.W. 744, 15 Am. St.Rep. 743; Magnolia Pet. Co. v. Guffey, 129 Tex. 293, 102 S.W.2d 408; Ætna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Love, 132 Tex. 280, 121 S.W.2d 986; 3 C.J.S., Agency, § 258, p. 192. But where it is sought to impute the malice or wantonness of an agent to the prin......
  • Authority of Bureau of Prisons Physicians to Perform Autopsies
    • United States
    • Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice
    • 31 Marzo 1977
    ... ... State, 44 Misc.2d 824, 254 N.Y.S.2d 952 (1954); ... Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Love, 132 Tex ... 280, 121 S.W.2d 986 (1939). See, ... ...
  • Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Wilson
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 30 Diciembre 1988
    ...by the agent for the purpose of accomplishing the mission entrusted to him by his principal. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Love, 132 Tex. 280, 121 S.W.2d 986, 990 (Comm.App.1938); Arterbury v. American Bank & Trust Co., 553 S.W.2d 943, 949 (Tex.Civ.App.--Texarkana 1977, no The record cle......
  • Armstrong v. Employers Cas. Co.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 19 Abril 1962
    ...S.W.2d 195, 196, no writ. Contra: Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Hayward Tex.Civ.App., 27 S.W. 36, 38, no writ. See also Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. v. Love, 132 Tex. 280, 121 S.W.2d 986; Pan american Life Ins. Co. v. Andrews, 161 Tex. 391, 341 S.W.2d 787, 793; Fite v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 611, 259 S.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT