American Indemnity Co. v. Fellbaum

CourtTexas Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtFly
CitationAmerican Indemnity Co. v. Fellbaum, 225 S.W. 873 (Tex. App. 1920)
Decision Date17 November 1920
Docket Number(No. 6448.)
PartiesAMERICAN INDEMNITY CO. v. FELLBAUM.

Appeal from District Court, Bexar County; J. T. Sluder, Judge.

Suit by Ernest Fellbaum against the American Indemnity Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Arnold & Cozby, of San Antonio, for appellant.

McAskill & Mauermann, Perry J. Lewis, H. C. Carter, Champe G. Carter, and Randolph L. Carter, all of San Antonio, for appellee.

FLY, C. J.

This is a suit by appellee, as administrator of the estate of M. D. Carr, deceased, against appellant, in which it is alleged that a judgment was obtained against appellee on March 3, 1917, by Douglas Stough for $4,000; that the judgment was based upon bodily injuries inflicted by M. D. Carr on the said Stough on or about September 27, 1915; that previously said M. D. Carr had obtained from the appellant a policy of insurance which indemnified him against such claims; and that such policy was in full force and effect when the injuries were inflicted. It was further alleged that the suit against him was pending when M. D. Carr died, and appellee was appointed administrator of his estate; that appellant took charge of the defense in said suit, as provided in the policy of insurance, both for Carr and the appellee, and had exclusive control of said suit. It was alleged that the judgment had been obtained and duly allowed and approved as a claim against the estate of M. D. Carr, and was paid in full by the administrator in the sum of $4,480. The defenses were that the cause of action died with M. D. Carr, and that the administrator borrowed money, without power or authority to do so, to pay off the judgment, and his action was not binding on the estate, and the note given for the borrowed money was not enforceable, and therefore the estate had sustained no loss. The cause was tried by the court and judgment rendered in favor of appellee for $4,760.

Although all the facts were agreed to by both parties, appellant requested the trial judge to file his findings of fact and conclusions of law; but, after the court had complied with the request, appellant sought to strike all out except the introductory sentence that, "The facts are found as set out in the agreed statement of facts." The first and second assignments of error complain of certain conclusions of fact to the effect that the note given by appellee to pay the judgment was executed in good faith and that the judgment was paid with the proceeds of the note. These conclusions were reasonably deducible from facts agreed to by appellant, which are as follows:

"The said Ernest Fellbaum, as administrator of said estate, borrowed from D. A. McAskill and H. C. Carter the sum of $4,480, said McAskill and Carter each giving Fellbaum, as administrator, their checks in the sum of $2,240 each; and to evidence said indebtedness, the said Ernest Fellbaum, as administrator, thereupon at the same time executed and delivered to the said D. A. McAskill and H. C. Carter his promissory note for said sum of $4,480, signed by Ernest Fellbaum as administrator of said estate and payable to the order of the said D. A. McAskill and H. C. Carter, a copy of which said note is hereto attached, marked `Exhibit C' and made a part hereof. The said note has never been paid. Upon receiving and cashing said checks at the bank and upon receipt of said $4,480 in cash from the bank, the said Ernest Fellbaum, administrator, took said money and paid it to Douglas Stough in full payment of her said judgment, and said Douglas Stough thereupon duly executed and delivered to said Fellbaum, administrator, a release of said judgment, a copy of which is hereto attached and marked `Exhibit D.' Said money was so handed by the administrator to the said Douglas Stough on said March 14, 1919, in the office of H. C. Carter, and at that time there was present the said Ernest Fellbaum, administrator, and H. C. Carter and Douglas Stough; and said administrator thereupon left, having received the release of the judgment, and thereupon the said Douglas Stough immediately delivered the said $4,480 in cash to the said H. C. Carter upon an agreement between the said Douglas Stough and the said McAskill and Carter that said sum of money was to...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
15 cases
  • Elliott v. Belt Auto. Ass'n
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • June 9, 1924
    ... ... by the Court ... SYLLABUS ... Interpretation ... giving greater indemnity will prevail. Where two ... interpretations equally fair may be given, that which gives ... the ... 571, 154 P. 1116, 155 P ... 1035, L. R. A. 1916D, 395, 398; American Indemnity Co. v ... Fellbaum (Tex. Civ. App.) 225 S.W. 873;[ELLIOTT V BELT ... AUTO ASS'N 100 ... ...
  • Ziegler v. Ryan
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • May 24, 1939
    ... ... 40, 171 A. 207; Graham v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co., 308 Pa. 534, 162 A. 902; Indemnity Co. of ... America v. Pitts, Tex.Com.App., 58 S.W.2d 53; ... Solomon v. Preferred Accident Ins ... v. New York Indem. Co., 229 ... A.D. 232, 241 N.Y.S. 417; Reinhart v. Great American Mut ... Indem. Co., 25 Ohio N.P.,N.S., 331; Malley v ... American Indem. Corp., 297 Pa. 216, ... Co., 32 R.I. 246, 79 A. 1, Ann.Cas.1912D, 906; ... American Indemnity Co. v. Fellbaum, Tex.Civ.App., ... 225 S.W. 873; Id., 114 Tex. 127, 263 S.W. 908, 37 A.L.R. 633; ... Automobile ... ...
  • Ziegler v. Ryan, 8163
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • May 24, 1939
    ...A. 571, 81 ALR 1322; Humes Const. Co. v. Philadelphia Casualty Co., 32 R.I. 246, 79 A. 1, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 906; American Indemnity Co. v. Fellbaum, Tex. Civ. App., 225 S.W. 873; Id., 114 Tex. 127, 37 ALR 633; Automobile Underwriters’ Ins. Co. v. Murrah, Tex Civ. App., 40 SW2d 233; Fullerton......
  • Ulico Cas. Co. v. Allied Pilots Ass'n
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • August 29, 2008
    ...of its contract with insured, of the action brought against the insured to recover damages." Id. (quoting Am. Indem. Co. v. Fellbaum, 225 S.W. 873, 874 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1920), aff'd, 114 Tex. 127, 263 S.W. 908 (1924)). The Ferris court went on to cite Murrah; Dallas Coffee & Tea Co......
  • Get Started for Free