Daniel v. Tyrrell & Garth Inv. Co., 6903.
Decision Date | 08 April 1936 |
Docket Number | No. 6903.,6903. |
Citation | 93 S.W.2d 372 |
Parties | DANIEL et al. v. TYRRELL & GARTH INV. CO. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
William McCraw, Atty. Gen., and Vernon Coe, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Vinson, Elkins, Sweeton & Weems, John C. Townes, Jr., and H. P. Pressler, Jr., all of Houston, for plaintiff in error.
Franklin & Blankenbecker, of Houston, for defendant in error.
Stewarts and W. Noble Carl, all of Galveston, amici curiæ.
This case was tried in the district court of Harris county before the court, without the intervention of a jury, on an agreed statement of facts. The following are the facts pertinent to this opinion:
Tyrrell & Garth Investment Company, hereafter designated Tyrrell & Garth, was a joint stock association, engaged in the business of buying and selling real estate. The American Title Guaranty Company, hereafter designated the title company, was a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of Texas, with the power and authority to carry on and conduct the business of guaranteeing land titles. On November 15, 1928, Tyrrell & Garth and the title company entered into a contract whereby the title company agreed to insure the titles to Tyrrell & Garth land for $2.50 per $1,000 of sale prices. Under the terms of this contract, the title company further agreed to issue certificates of title for $1 each. Such contract was to run until all of a certain tract of land owned and subdivided by Tyrrell & Garth was sold.
At the time the above contract was entered into, there was no law in force in this state regulating or controlling the forms of policies to be issued or rates to be charged by title insurance companies doing business in this state.
Subsequent to the time the above contract was entered into between Tyrrell & Garth and the title company, the Legislature in this state enacted chapter 40, Acts Regular Session, 41st Legislature, 1929. The above act is codified as article 1302a, Vernon's Annotated Revised Civil Statutes of Texas. The act in question is a very comprehensive one, "Relating to Abstract and Title Insurance Corporations." It became effective February 27, 1929, as above stated, after the above contract was entered into. In the case at bar, we are directly concerned with section 3 of such Act (Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 1302a, § 3), which reads as follows:
It further appears from the record that after the above act became effective, the board of insurance commissioners of Texas, hereafter designated as the board, duly passed and promulgated rules and regulations prescribing the forms of policies to be issued and rates to be charged by title insurance companies, such as this. These rules and regulations became effective on June 1, 1931. Under such rules and regulations, it was provided that all companies insuring titles in this state should charge a rate of one-half of 1 per cent., with a minimum charge of $7.50 per guaranty certificate.
It further appears that under the rules and regulations passed and promulgated by the board, all title insurance companies were compelled to charge the rates fixed by such board, and this in spite of the fact that such companies may have had outstanding contracts to issue their policies at other and lesser rates. In this connection, it appears that under the rules and regulations so...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation, Inc. v. Lewellen
...Co. v. Falkner, 369 S.W.2d 427 (Tex.1963); Davis v. City of Lubbock, 160 Tex. 38, 326 S.W.2d 699 (1959); Daniel v. Tyrrell & Garth Inv. Co., 127 Tex. 213, 93 S.W.2d 372 (1936). And in Texas Antiquities Committee v. Dallas County Community College District, 554 S.W.2d 924 (Tex.1977), a plura......
-
Universe Life Ins. Co. v. Giles
...we have long-recognized that the insurance industry is peculiarly affected with a public interest. See Daniel v. Tyrrell & Garth Inv. Co., 127 Tex. 213, 93 S.W.2d 372, 374-75 (1936). We do not believe, however, that it justifies eliminating the cause of action. Even the tort's most outspoke......
-
Satterfield v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc.
...occupations and professions. See, e.g., Texas State Bd. of Barber Exam'rs, 454 S.W.2d at 731 (barbers); Daniel v. Tyrrell & Garth Inv. Co., 127 Tex. 213, 93 S.W.2d 372 (1936) (insurance companies); Texas State Teachers Ass'n, 711 S.W.2d at 421 (regulation of teaching profession and public e......
-
Texas Power & Light Co. v. Kousal
...The rate-making power vested in the Board of Commissioners by the City Charter is a nondelegable legislative power. Daniel v. Tyrrell & Garth Inv. Co., 127 Tex. 213, 93 S. W.2d 372; Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210, 29 S.Ct. 67, 53 L.Ed. 150; Southwestern Telegraph & Telepho......