Corder v. Morgan Roofing Co.
| Decision Date | 08 July 1946 |
| Docket Number | 39656,39657 |
| Parties | J.S. Corder and Maude S. Corder v. Morgan Roofing Company, a Corporation, Defendant, and Bituminous Casualty Corporation, a Corporation, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Reported at 355 Mo. 127 at 142.
Original Opinion of June 10, 1946, Reported at 355 Mo. 127.
On Motions for Rehearing.
Both parties have filed motions for rehearing. Garnishee's motion is a re-argument of the questions decided by the opinion and we adhere to our rulings as to all of them. Garnishee does further contend that the joint judgment is not authorized because of Section 97 of the Civil Code (Sec 847.97 Mo. Stat. Ann.) However, that section relates only to compulsory consolidations and has no bearing on voluntary consolidations. Section 16 of the Code (Sec. 847.16 Mo. Stat Ann.) authorizes voluntary joinder of plaintiffs when they assert rights "arising out of the same transaction occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all of them will arise in the action". Therefore, plaintiffs could have joined under this section had it been in force when they commenced their garnishments. Certainly there is no good reason why they could not afterwards consolidate them by agreement. While separate judgments are authorized by this section, plaintiffs make no complaint concerning this joint judgment and Garnishee can be in no way prejudiced by it. Garnishee's motion is overruled.
Plaintiffs in their motion (also asking transfer to banc) contend that Section 6009, R.S. 1939, Mo. Stat. Ann. makes all persons injured by one insured under a public liability policy, beneficiaries of the policy so that they are entitled to recover damages and attorney's fees under Section 6040, R.S. 1939, Mo. Stat. Ann. They even argue that plaintiffs herein suffered a loss under the policy issued to defendant, and, therefore, have the right to recover on it. They say that this is true because Section 6009 makes such insurance a contract of indemnity against liability and not a contract of indemnity against loss. [Citing Yeats v. Dodson, 345 Mo. 196, 127 S.W.2d 652; and Hocken v. Allstate Insurance Co., 235 Mo.App. 991, 147 S.W.2d 182.] The trouble with this argument is that Section 6010, R.S. 1939, Mo. Stat. Ann. which provides the remedy for such an injured person who recovers a judgment for his injuries, only authorizes him "to reach and apply the insurance money to the satisfaction of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chailland v. M.F.A. Mut. Ins. Co.
...F.2d 264, 92 A.L.R. 218 (cited in the opinion), where the agent was authorized to 'issue' policies. And see also, Corder v. Morgan Roofing Co., 355 Mo. 127, 195 S.W.2d 441, for a specific definition. In my view, there was not in the present case any legitimate showing of Crum's authority ev......