C. Hayman Construction Co. v. American Indemnity Co., B--2747
Decision Date | 06 October 1971 |
Docket Number | No. B--2747,B--2747 |
Citation | 471 S.W.2d 564 |
Parties | C. HAYMAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. AMERICAN INDEMNITY COMPANY, a Texas Corporation, et al., Appellees. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Green, Gilmore, Crutcher & Rothpletz, John Plath Green, and Harry Crutcher, Dallas, for appellants.
Kilgore & Kilgore, James A. Gilgore, Dallas, for appellees.
This case is before us on certified questions from the Court of Civil Appeals for the Fifth District.
The basic question is whether the provisions of Art. 7.01, Tex.Ins.Code Ann., V.A.T.S., concerning venue of suits against private contractors, are unconstitutional because not germane to the subject expressed in the legislative title.
The material facts set out in the certificate of the court of civil appeals are as follows:
'This court reversed the order of the trial court and rendered judgment overruling the pleas of privilege of the corporate defendants on the grounds that Article 7.01 is unconstitutional for the reasons urged by plaintiffs, and consequently the court did not reach the question of whether such venue provisions are permissive rather than mandatory.'
Upon the motion of the defendants pursuant to Rule 461 et seq. Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the following questions were certified to us:
(1) Did the trial court err in holding that it was required by Tex.Ins.Code Ann., Art. 7.01 to sustain the amended pleas of privilege and transfer this cause to the counties in which the payment bonds were filed?
(2) Is the title to Chapter 39, Acts of 56th Legislature, 2d Called Session (1959), p. 159, sufficient under Tex.Const., Art III, § 35, Vernon's Ann.Stat., to support the validity of those provisions of the act (Tex.Ins.Code Ann., Art. 7.01) which purport to fix venue of suits on bonds of private contractors in the counties in which such bonds are filed?
(3) If the answer to Question No. 2 is 'yes,' are the venue provisions of Article 7.01 mandatory and exclusive?
Article III, § 35 of the Texas Constitution provides that,
Article 7.01 of the Insurance Code was enacted under the following title:
'An Act to amend the Insurance Code to include a new Chapter 7 so as to provide that all public officers of this State and all Executors, Administrators, Guardians, Receivers, and Trustees appointed by any court, whose bonds have been executed by a corporate surety, shall be subject to suit in the proper court of the county wherein said bond is filed; and declaring an emergency.' Tex.Laws, 2d Spec.Sess.1959, Ch. 39, at 159.
The material provisions of the act are as follows:
'If any suit shall be instituted upon any bond or obligation of any insurance company licensed in this State and having authority to act as surety and guarantor of the fidelity of employees, trustees, executors, administrators, guardians or others appointed to, or assuming the performance of any trust, public or private, under appointment of any court or tribunal, Or under contract between private individuals or corporations, or upon any bond or bonds that may be required to be filed in any judicial proceedings, Or to guarantee any contract...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte Crisp
...construed to uphold its validity if at all possible. See Robinson v. Hill, 507 S.W.2d 521 (Tex.1974) and C. Hayman Construction Co. v. American Indemnity Co., 471 S.W.2d 564 (Tex.1971). Of particular significance is the majority's reliance on City of Brownsville, supra, for its application ......
-
Robinson v. Hill
...same general subject, have a mutual connection, and are not foreign to the subject expressed in the title. See Hayman Const. Co. v. American Indem. Co., Tex.Sup., 471 S.W.2d 564; Key Western Life Ins. Co. v. State Bd. of Ins., 163 Tex. 11, 350 S.W.2d 839; Central Ed. Agency v. Independent S......
-
City of Brownsville v. Public Utility Commission of Texas
...construed to uphold its validity if at all possible. Robinson v. Hill, 507 S.W.2d 521 (Tex.1974); C. Hayman Construction Co. v. American Indemnity Co., 471 S.W.2d 564 (Tex.1971). A statute will not be invalidated where its provisions relate directly or indirectly to the same general subject......
-
State Bd. of Ins. v. National Employee Ben. Adm'rs, Inc.
...same general subject and have a mutual connection. LeCroy, 713 S.W.2d at 337; Robinson, 507 S.W.2d at 525; C. Hayman Const. Co. v. American Indem. Co., 471 S.W.2d 564, 566 (Tex.1971). Courts are to give a liberal interpretation in favor of constitutionality to legislation challenged as viol......