Commercial Standard Ins. Co. v. Davis, 24798.
| Decision Date | 06 March 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 24798.,24798. |
| Citation | 137 S.W.2d 1 |
| Parties | COMMERCIAL STANDARD INS. CO. v. DAVIS. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Todd, Crowley & Thompson, of Fort Worth, for plaintiff in error.
E. M. Davis and J. C. Darroch, both of Brownwood, for defendant in error.
This suit was filed in the District Court of Mills County, Texas, by Dr. Robert Guy Davis against Commercial Standard Insurance Company, to recover compensation as an employee of Daniel Baker College, a corporation. Trial in the district court with the aid of a jury resulted in a verdict and judgment for Dr. Davis. On appeal by the insurance company to the Court of Civil Appeals at Austin, the judgment of the district court was reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial on account of a trial error. 135 S.W.2d 794. The insurance company has appealed to this court for writ of error, contending that the Court of Civil Appeals erred in refusing to finally render judgment for it. The case is before us only on such application.
Daniel Baker College is a nonprofit religious educational corporation, duly incorporated under the laws of this State. Such corporation owns and operates a college, known as Daniel Baker College, at Brownwood, Brown County, Texas. During the time here involved, this insurance company was the compensation insurance carrier of the corporation, Daniel Baker College. Dr. Davis contends that he was injured while in the discharge of his duties as an employee of Daniel Baker College, a corporation. He claims compensation under the above-mentioned insurance policy. The insurance company contends that Dr. Davis was not covered by its insurance policy, because of the provisions of Article 8309, Section la, R.C. S. 1925. Such statute reads as follows: "The president, vice-president or vice-presidents, secretary or other officers thereof provided in its charter or by-laws and the directors of any corporation which is a subscriber to this law shall not be deemed or held to be an employe...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. Johnston
...inference that the defendant did not own the truck and that it was not being used in his behalf. The rule of Commercial Standard Ins. Co. v. Davis, 134 Tex. 487, 137 S.W.2d 1, is not applicable here. Nor is there a question of credibility of witnesses involved, for 'A jury (or a judge sitti......
-
Childs v. Haussecker
...minds could not differ about the conclusion to be drawn from the facts in the record. See, e.g., Commercial Standard Ins. Co. v. Davis, 134 Tex. 487, 137 S.W.2d 1, 2 (1940). In conducting our review, all evidence favorable to Haussecker and Martinez must be taken as true, and all reasonable......
-
Reynolds-Penland Co. v. Hexter & Lobello
...question is presented. Le Master v. Fort Worth Transit Company, 138 Tex. 512, 160 S.W.2d 224, 226 (1942); Commercial Standard Ins. Co. v. Davis, 134 Tex. 487, 137 S.W.2d 1, 2 (1940); Drake v. Walls, 348 S.W.2d 62, 65 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1961, writ ref'd n. r. e.). Since this is an appeal f......
-
Richey v. Brookshire Grocery Co.
...minds can draw different inferences or conclusions from undisputed facts, a fact issue is presented." Commercial Standard Ins. Co. v. Davis, 134 Tex. 487, 137 S.W.2d 1, 2 (1940); see also Ramo, Inc. v. English, 500 S.W.2d 461, 467 (Tex.1973); Mills v. Bartlett, 377 S.W.2d 636, 638 (Tex.1964......