Brannon v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 09 June 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 12099.,12099. |
| Citation | 221 S.W.2d 554 |
| Parties | BRANNON v. PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INS. CO. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Harris County; Ben F. Wilson, Judge.
Suit under the Workmen's Compensation Act by J. W. Brannon against the Pacific Employers Insurance Company to set aside a compromise settlement agreement respecting alleged benefits accruing to plaintiff. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Peter P. Cheswick, of Houston, for appellant.
Chilton Bryan and S. G. Kolius, both of Houston, for appellee.
The appellant, J. W. Brannon, sued the Pacific Employers Insurance Company in the District Court of Harris County, to set aside a compromise-settlement agreement, relating to alleged benefits accruing to him under the Workmen's Compensation Law of Texas. Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 8306 et seq. The compromise-agreement was duly approved by the Industrial Accident Board of Texas, and was in sum of $215, out of which the appellant received a sum of $115 in cash and $100 by check, which had never been returned by appellant to appellee, but which appellee had retained.
Appellant alleged fraud as grounds for setting aside the compromise-agreement, and further alleged that his disability resulting from the accidental injury was total and permanent, entitling him to maximum compensation under the Texas law.
The Pacific Employers Insurance Company filed its plea in abatement to jurisdiction of the district court to entertain this suit, because the amount involved was less than $500, and the district court sustained its plea, dismissing the suit.
The trial court's order of dismissal contained this recitation: "* * * it is the opinion of the Court that the above entitled and numbered cause is one solely cognizable by and within the jurisdiction of the County Court, and that the above entitled and numbered cause is not cognizable by and within the jurisdiction of this Court * * *".
Appellant's sole point of error for a reversal, together with citation of the leading cases he contends settle the question in favor of the jurisdiction of the trial court to hear and determine such cause, are as follows: "The district court erred in sustaining the Plea in Abatement, because in suits to set aside a compromise-settlement agreement, under the Workmen's Compensation Law, the amount of the agreement procured by fraud cannot be used to determine jurisdiction of the trial court." Lumbermen's Reciprocal Ass'n v. Henderson, Tex.Com. App., 15 S.W.2d 565, 566, Syl. 2; Maryland Casualty Company v. Meyer, Tex.Civ. App., 41 S.W.2d 291.
This Court overrules such contention, and affirms the appealed-from judgment.
A careful review of appellant's petition in the trial court convinces it that he mis-construed the holdings of the courts that he so relies upon, as well as the reaches of his petition in its averments as to the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the suit.
As the preceding recitations have shown, he merely sued to set aside the Accident Board's approval of the compromise-settlement the appellant and the appellee had signed for a total of $215 without there having been a trial either in any court, or before the Accident Board, of any claim upon his part for benefits under the compensation law, upon the ground that such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brannon v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co.
...and dismissing the cause, petitioner duly appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals at Galveston, Texas, where such judgment was affirmed, 221 S.W.2d 554. The cause has regularly reached this court for its decision. Both parties agree there is only one point for decision, Does the District Cou......