Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Brunken
Decision Date | 06 December 1963 |
Docket Number | No. 3831,3831 |
Citation | 373 S.W.2d 811 |
Parties | AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY, Appellant, v. Denton R. BRUNKEN, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Crenshaw, Dupree & Milam, Brad Crawford, Jr., Lubbock, for appellant.
John K. Ford, Odessa, Woodrow Edwards, Gilmer, for appellee.
Appealed from the District Court of Borden County.
This is a workmen's compensation case. Denton R. Brunken, the employee, obtained a judgment in the District Court of Borden County based on a jury verdict that he was permanently partially incapacitated by an injury he received while employed by Noble Drilling Corporation in Borden County. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, said employer's insurer, has appealed.
Appellant's first point is that the court erred in overruling its plea in abatement that there was a prior suit pending between the same parties over the same cause of action in the United States District Court at Lubbock. It was shown that on April 17th, 1962, appellant filled its notice of intention not to abide by the award of the Industrial Accident Board and its notice of appeal with the Board and on the same day filed its original complaint, 'appealing' from the action of the Board, in said United States District Court. On April 19th, Brunken likewise appealed and filed suit in the District Court of Borden County; on April 24th, service was had on Brunken in the federal court case; on April 26th, Brunken filed an answer and cross action in the federal court; on May 11th, the insurance company filed its plea in abatement in the state court. Said suits were between the same parties over the same cause of action. The court did not err in overruling the plea in abatement. The general rule, which is adhered to in Texas, is that pendency of a prior suit between the same parties over the same cause of action in a federal court is not ground for abatement of a subsequent suit in a court of the state in which the federal court sits. 56 A.L.R.2d 338; 2 Texas Digest, Abatement & Revival, k12; 1 Texas Jur.2d 61; Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. De Martini, Tex.Civ.App., 118 S.W.2d 901 (Writ Ref.); International & G. N. R. Co. v. Barton, 24 Tex.Civ.App., 122, 57 S.W. 292, (Writ Ref.); Northwest Engineering Co. v. Chadwick Machinery Co., Tex.Civ.App., 93 S.W.2d 1223, (Writ Dis.); Boger v. Moore, Tex.Civ.App., 196 S.W.2d 646, 648; Mack v. Reserve Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 217 S.W.2d 39. See also Hyde Corporation v. Huffines, 158 Tex. 566, 578, 314 S.W.2d 763.
Appellant's points 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, which it refers to as Group 1, is restated in summary in its brief as follows:
'This case should be reversed for the failure of the trial court to sustain objections of appellant's counsel to immproper argument by Appellee's attorney, and for the improper jury argument by Appellee's counsel in going outside of the record and appealing to passion and prejudice and because of the aggregate effect of such improper argument upon the jury.'
Appellant says objections were made to arguments until the court twice instructed its counsel that the court did not rule on objections to arguments and ordered counsel to be seated. It contends that the court's said action prevented appellant from objecting to other inflammatory and prejudicial argument. Bills of exception 1 to 5, inclusive, are as follows:
(1)
'BE IT REMEMBERED that upon the trial of the above entitled and numbered cause, and on final argument by counsel for plaintiff, plaintiff's counsel, Honorable Robert Zeisenheim, made the following argument:
That objections to such arguments and rulings by the Court are as shown by the above quoted record.'
(2)
'BE IT REMEMBERED that upon the trial of the above entitled and numbered cause, and on final argument by counsel for plaintiff, plaintiff's counsel, Honorable Robert Zeisenheim, made the following argument:
That objections to such arguments and rulings by the Court are as shown by the above quoted record.'
(3)
'BE IT REMEMBERED that upon the trial of the above entitled and numbered cause, and the on final argument by counsel for plaintiff, plaintiff's counsel, Honorable Robert Zeisenheim, made the following argument:
That objections to such arguments and rulings by the Court are as shown by the above quoted record.'
(4)
'BE IT REMEMBERED that upon the trial of the above entitled and numbered cause, and on final argument by counsel for plaintiff, plaintiff's counsel, Honorable Zeisenheim, made the following argument:
That objections to such arguments and rulings by the Court are as shown by the above quoted record.'
(5)
'BE IT REMEMBERED that upon the trial of the above entitled and numbered cause, and on the final argument by counsel for plaintiff, plaintiff's counsel, Honorable Robert Zeisenheim, made the following argument:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kay v. Home Indemnity Company
...is the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals in Aetna Casualty & Surety Company v. Brunken, Tex.Civ.App., 1963, error refused n.r.e., 373 S.W.2d 811. There, unlike our situation where the first case was filed in the State Court, the second in the Federal Court, the tables were turned. The f......
-
Williamson v. Tucker
...of Houston, 507 S.W.2d 815 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston (14th Dist.) 1974, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Brunken, 373 S.W.2d 811 (Tex.Civ.App. Eastland 1963, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. De Martini, 118 S.W.2d 901 (Tex.Civ.App. El Paso 1938, writ ref'd......
-
In re Old Am. Cnty. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
...the court's destroying diversity jurisdiction. That motion is still pending. 3. See also Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Brunken, 373 S.W.2d 811, 813 (Tex. Civ. App.—Eastland 1963, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ("The general rule, which is adhered to in Texas, is that pendency of a prior suit between t......
-
Byrnes v. University of Houston
...Nevertheless, the pendency of a suit in federal court does not abate a state court action. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company v. Brunken, 373 S.W.2d 811 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1963, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. De Martini, 118 S.W.2d 901 (Tex.Civ.App.--El Paso 1938, writ ......