Commonwealth Casualty & Ins. Co. v. Morris, 2180.
| Decision Date | 10 October 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 2180.,2180. |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH CASUALTY & INS. CO. v. MORRIS. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Grayson County Court; Jake J. Loy, Judge.
Action by the Commonwealth Casualty and Insurance Company against Aaron M. Morris to restrain prosecution of three separate suits on an insurance policy issued by plaintiff. From a judgment sustaining a general demurrer to the petition, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
John G. Whitaker, of Dallas, for appellant.
Gullett & Gullett, of Denison, and J. S. Kone, of Sherman, for appellee.
To avoid a multiplicity of suits against it, the Commonwealth Casualty & Insurance Company filed its petition in the County Court seeking to restrain Aaron M. Morris from prosecuting three separate suits, each demanding claims based upon and arising as benefits out of the terms of an insurance policy issued to him by the company, and indemnifying him for time lost due to disabilities resulting from sickness, accident, etc.
The trial court sustained a general demurrer to the petition, etc. That action is assigned as error.
The truth of the allegations of the petition being thus admitted, we examine the same to ascertain the correctness of the court's ruling. As stated, this proceeding seeks to restrain the prosecution of three separate suits upon the same contract on the theory that all could be brought in one suit in a court of competent jurisdiction, thereby avoiding a multiplicity of suits and the unnecessary costs, expenses, etc. incident to defending several suits. The amount claimed in each suit was within the jurisdiction of the justice court and the sum of the three claims aggregated $419.19. Two of the suits carried consecutive numbers on the docket and were filed on the same day. The other suit was filed soon thereafter but relator does not allege the specific date. It was further alleged that no reason existed for filing the claims in separate suits, except the desire and intention on the part of the plaintiff therein (respondent) to injure and harass the plaintiff (relator) and that the plaintiff has no adequate legal remedy, etc.
The claims are all held by Morris against the Insurance Company. They are similar in nature, involve similar facts, grow out of the same general source (legal rights under the terms of the policy), and are all capable of adjustment in one suit. Under facts and circumstances alleged, we conclude that the remedy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
University of Tex. v. Morris
...v. Pearlstone Mill & Elevator Co., Tex.Com.App., 53 S.W.2d 1001, holding approved by the Supreme Court; Commonwealth Casualty & Insurance Co. v. Morris, Tex.Civ.App., 155 S.W.2d 394, no wr. Despite Dr. Rousos' failure to enter an appearance in the Texas suit prior to the time the New Mexico......
-
H. Rouw Co. v. Texas & N. O. R. Co., 12575
...time and costs where each suit must be tried separately, an injunction and order to consolidate are proper. Commonwealth Casualty & Ins. Co. v. Morris, Tex.Civ.App., 155 S.W.2d 394; Luttring v. American Fruit Growers, Tex.Civ.App., 49 S.W.2d 980; Stewart v. Orsburn, Tex.Civ.App., 41 S.W.2d ......