Camden Fire Ins. Ass'n v. Hill, (No. 2295.)
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
| Writing for the Court | Hall |
| Citation | 264 S.W. 123 |
| Parties | CAMDEN FIRE INS. ASS'N v. HILL. |
| Docket Number | (No. 2295.) |
| Decision Date | 02 April 1924 |
v.
HILL.
Page 124
Appeal from District Court, Wichita County; P. A. Martin, Judge.
Action by F. E. Hill against the Camden Fire Insurance Association. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant filed petition in nature of bill of review, on which judgment was confirmed, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Robertson, Senter & Westerfeld, of Dallas, for appellant.
Weeks, Morrow & Francis, of Wichita Falls, for appellee.
HALL, C. J.
On March 18, 1921, the appellee. Hill, sued the appellant insurance company and H. R. Denny, alleging, in substance, that on June 15, 1920, he had given Denny, as the local agent of the insurance company, his application for insurance upon his automobile in the sum of $1,500 and at that time paid Denny the premium; that he agreed with Denny that the policy should be delivered and held by the bank at Iowa Park, of which Denny was the managing officer; that the policy should be attached to a note which he owed the bank and which was secured by chattel mortgage upon the insured automobile; that the bank should hold the policy for its protection in the event of the destruction of the automobile. He alleges that it was further agreed that if the company should fail to issue the policy he should be notified either by the company or Denny. He alleges the delivery of the application and premium to the company, failure of the company to issue the policy, his reliance upon the fact that the policy had been issued, and the destruction of the automobile on December 24, 1920. Citation was issued upon this pleading and delivered to the sheriff of Wichita county, who made the following return, dated March 24, 1921:
"Came to hand on the 21st day of March, A. D. 1921, at 9 o'clock a. m. and executed the 24th day of March, A. D. 1921, by delivering to H. R. Denny, as local agent of the Camden Fire Insurance Association, the within-named defendants, each in person, a true copy of this writ."
On March 7, 1922, plaintiff, Hill, filed his first amended petition, making substantially the same allegations as in his original petition, and on the same day filed his first supplemental petition, in which he alleged that the defendant company was a corporation incorporated under the laws of New Jersey, and that Cavens, Dargan & Roberts, residing in Houston, Tex., were its agents, and praying for the issuance and service of citation upon them as such. On the 10th day of March, 1922, judgment by default was rendered against the appellant company in the sum of $1,500. On the 28th day of March thereafter the insurance company filed an answer which contains a general demurrer, general denial, and a special denial of the authority of Denny to make an oral contract of insurance and a denial of Denny's authority to bind defendant, as alleged in plaintiff's petition. These proceedings were all during what is known as the January term of the Eighty-Ninth district court of Wichita county, which ended in April 2, 1922.
On the 1st day of June, 1922, and during what is termed the April term of said court, the insurance company filed its first supplemental answer and plea in reconvention, alleging that on the 7th day of March, 1922, plaintiff filed an amended petition and caused citation to be issued thereon and served on Cravens, Dargan & Roberts, commanding the defendant to appear and answer on the 3d day of April, 1922; that this was the first citation which had ever been served upon an agent of said company; that in response to said citation said company appeared and in due time filed its answer, requesting that the case be placed upon the jury docket, and deposited its jury fee with the clerk of said court; that on the 10th day of March, 1922, after the filing of said amended petition and service of citation, the plaintiff took judgment by default and with knowledge that there had been no legal service of process, whereby the defendant had been exposed to annoyance, harassment, and injury in its reputation, business, and credit and to the peril of exclusion from the state and the cancellation of its permit to do business in the state; that said judgment was taken with wrongful and malicious intent, thereby injurying the defendant company in the sum of $10,000 actual damages and $5,000 exemplary damages. On November 11, 1922, defendant insurance company filed in the same court its petition in the nature of a bill of
Page 125
review, setting out with great detail the facts and circumstances connected with said cause from its beginning, the lack of service upon the defendant insurance company until after the filing of its first amended and first supplemental petitions on the 7th of March, 1922; also setting out in detail correspondence continuing over several months between the attorneys of the parties; further alleging that Denny's agency and authority to collect premiums expired on the 28th day of January, 1921; that he was not the agent of the company when the citation which had been issued on the 7th day of March, 1922, was served; that if Denny made any agreement with plaintiff for insurance it was made by him for the benefit of the First State Bank of Iowa Park, of which he was cashier at the time; that he had never delivered plaintiff's application for insurance to the company nor had the company ever received any premium.
On November 11, 1922, plaintiff filed his reply to the defendant's bill of review, alleging that the company was apprised of the rendition of said judgment during the January term of the court and made no motion for a new trial at said term and had prosecuted no appeal or writ of error from said judgment; that R. H. Denny was the local agent of the insurance company at the time original citation was served upon him; that the company's attorney was notified of the pendency of the suit prior to the date of the default judgment and was requested to file an answer. It is further alleged that Ben W. Tipton, an employee of appellee's attorneys, undertook to secure new service of process for the April term of the court, not knowing that service had theretofore been perfected in said cause, which did not prevent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Camden Fire Ins. Co. v. Hill, (No. 710-4274.)
...the Camden Fire Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff by default was, on defendant's petition in nature of bill of review, affirmed (264 S. W. 123), and defendant brings error. Reversed, and judgment E. G. Senter, of Dallas, for plaintiff in error. Weeks, Morrow & Francis, of Wichita Fa......
-
Askey v. Power, (No. 12174.)
...after submission, as a reason for correcting the record or obtaining a rehearing." In the case of Camden Fire Ins. Ass'n v. Hill, 264 S. W. 123, 124, it was held by the Amarillo Court of Civil Appeals that, quoting from the headnote: "Under Courts of Civil Appeals rule 22, party cannot have......
-
Peters v. Pursley, (No. 2425.)
...justice demanded, and to require or permit the remittitur reducing the judgment to $2,000. Camden Fire Ins. Co. v. Hill (Tex. Civ. App.) 264 S. W. 123; also the same case, supra; Waggoner v. Knight (Tex. Com. App.) 231 S. W. 357, and dissenting opinion in same case (Tex. Civ. App.) 214 S. W......
-
Camden Fire Ins. Co. v. Hill, (No. 710-4274.)
...the Camden Fire Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff by default was, on defendant's petition in nature of bill of review, affirmed (264 S. W. 123), and defendant brings error. Reversed, and judgment E. G. Senter, of Dallas, for plaintiff in error. Weeks, Morrow & Francis, of Wichita Fa......
-
Askey v. Power, (No. 12174.)
...after submission, as a reason for correcting the record or obtaining a rehearing." In the case of Camden Fire Ins. Ass'n v. Hill, 264 S. W. 123, 124, it was held by the Amarillo Court of Civil Appeals that, quoting from the headnote: "Under Courts of Civil Appeals rule 22, party cannot have......
-
Peters v. Pursley, (No. 2425.)
...justice demanded, and to require or permit the remittitur reducing the judgment to $2,000. Camden Fire Ins. Co. v. Hill (Tex. Civ. App.) 264 S. W. 123; also the same case, supra; Waggoner v. Knight (Tex. Com. App.) 231 S. W. 357, and dissenting opinion in same case (Tex. Civ. App.) 214 S. W......