Brown v. Ætna Casualty & Surety Co.
Decision Date | 17 November 1938 |
Docket Number | No. 10786.,10786. |
Parties | BROWN v. ÆTNA CASUALTY & SURETY CO. et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Morris Pepper and J. A. Collier, both of Houston (James A. Copeland, of Houston, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Fulbright, Crooker & Freeman, of Houston (Paul Strong, of Houston, of counsel), for defendant in error Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
Bracewell & Spiner, of Houston, for intervener Sylvia Robinson.
This appeal is from a judgment of the 113th District Court of Harris County dismissing for want of jurisdiction the suit of plaintiffs in error, Pearl Brown, Crawford Brown, Mary Jones, and Sylvia Robinson, for compensation, under the Texas Employers' Liability Act, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 8306 et seq., for the accidental death of Adolphus Brown, against the defendant in error Casualty Company, his employer's insurance-carrier, upon this stated finding of fact: "The evidence conclusively shows that Adolphus Brown came to his death while performing maritime service to the completed vessel, `Sarnette', which was capable of self-propulsion, and was afloat in navigable waters of the United States".
This holding was made after a verdict favorable to the plaintiff in error upon special issues had been returned by a jury in response to evidence from all parties, on the Casualty Company's motion, then presented, asserting that such facts brought the declared-upon claims under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States courts in Admiralty, to the exclusion of the Texas compensation statute, so invoked.
Wherefore, the main if not the sole question presented here is whether or not the trial court erred in so determining the cause to be cognizable, if at all, by the United States courts of Admiralty only. After having had the benefit of able briefs and arguments from both sides, it is determined that the court below was correct, and that under the conclusive if not undisputed state of the evidence, the Admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal courts was shown to apply to the situation presented, rather than that of the State courts in administering its policy of compensation-insurance for industrial accidents, the material facts in substance being these:
The plaintiff in error, as well as the intervenor in the trial court who makes common cause with her here, in inveighing against the adverse judgment, relies chiefly upon the former holding of this court in Southern Surety Co. v. Crawford, 274 S.W. 280, and Southern Surety Co. v. Stubbs, 199 S.W. 343, 346, certiorari in the former having been denied by the United States Supreme Court, as shown in 270 U.S. 655, 46 S.Ct. 353, 70 L.Ed. 783; but it seems apparent, when the facts controlling those two causes are compared with the stated ones here, that they are distinguishable from this, in that both of those causes grew out of the death of two deck-hands on the same nonself-propelling dredge, which was engaged in the improvement of a Texas inland harbor-channel; this court held that service to have been of such a local nature as not to affect the rules of the sea, and therefore not to have been exclusively within the Admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal Courts; plainly, however, that situation appears to have been a far cry from the one here reflected, considering the facts recited supra. Under them, that Buffalo Bayou at the place of...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Aladdin Petroleum Corp. v. State ex rel. Comm'rs of the Land Office
-
Aladdin Petroleum Corp. v. State ex rel. Com'rs of Land Office
... ... Monnent, ... Hayes & Brown, of Oklahoma City, Don Emery, Rayburn L ... Foster, R. B. F. Hummer and ... Boudreaux, La.App., 142 So. 874; ... Brown v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., Tex.Civ.App., ... 122 S.W.2d 261; Hobart-Lee Tie Co. v ... ...
- Brown v. Ætna Casualty & Surety Co.