Employers' Indemnity Corporation v. Southwest Nat. Bank
Decision Date | 27 October 1927 |
Docket Number | (No. 2057.) |
Citation | 299 S.W. 676 |
Parties | EMPLOYERS' INDEMNITY CORPORATION et al. v. SOUTHWEST NAT. BANK.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Dallas County; Louis Wilson, Judge.
Suit by the Southwest National Bank against the Employers' Indemnity Corporation and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part.
Collins & Houston and Lewis T. Carpenter, all of Dallas, for appellants.
Touchstone, Wight, Gormley & Price and Thomas & Storey, all of Dallas, for appellee.
This suit was brought by appellee against Western Indemnity Company, Western Casualty & Guaranty Company, and Employers' Indemnity Corporation. For brevity, the defendants will be designated, respectively, as the Western Company, the Casualty Company, and the Employers' Corporation.
The action was to recover the sums of $5,000 and $500, paid out by appellees as attorney's fees under circumstances now to be stated. Under the settled rule, the evidence and the inferences properly to be drawn therefrom will be viewed in the aspect most favorable to appellee.
October 11, 1912, the Commonwealth National Bank of Dallas, Tex., at the instance of the Casualty Company, issued its certificate of deposit in favor of what will be hereinafter designated as the French Bank, for $100,000, signed by its cashier, R. P. Wofford, and two days later the Commonwealth Bank, by its president, J. W. Wright, cabled the French Bank certifying to such deposit. In fact, no such deposit had been made, and to secure the Commonwealth Bank against such certificate the Casualty Company deposited with the Commonwealth Bank 200 gold bonds for $1,000 each, secured by deed of trust on land in Dallas.
By process not necessary to detail, the Security National Bank of Dallas succeeded to the liability and rights of the Commonwealth Bank in the premises, and appellee in turn has succeeded to the liability and rights of the Security Bank.
On October 10, 1914, the French Bank (Credit Foncier Des Etats Unis) filed suit in the United States District Court at Dallas against Wright, Wofford, and the banks to recover said sum of $100,000. That suit was not disposed of until 1923, when it was determined in favor of the defendants.
On June 29, 1915, the Casualty Company, as principal, and the Western Company, as surety, executed and delivered a bond which provides:
Appellee has succeeded to all of the rights of the obligee in said bond, the Security National Bank. As to that no point is made.
The Western Company disposed of all of its assets to the Employers' Corporation, and the former ceased to do business. At that time they entered into a contract, the pertinent terms of which read:
Subsequent to the termination of the litigation in 1923 of the suit in the federal court, the appellee paid to its attorneys therein, Leake & Henry, $5,000, for their fee, and upon refusal of defendants to pay same, brought this action to recover same, together with $500 attorney's fee paid to its attorney in the present litigation. It was agreed that the last-named fee was a reasonable charge for the service rendered.
Upon the trial but two issues were submitted. Appellants did not request the submission of additional issues. The jury found, first, it was necessary, under the facts and circumstances of the case, for the Security National Bank to employ the services of the firm of Leake & Henry in the federal court case; second, a reasonable attorney's fee for the services rendered the bank in the suit was $5,000. Judgment was rendered in favor of appellee for the amount sued for.
For convenience, the second proposition will be first considered. This is to the effect that plaintiff cannot recover because the attorney's fee expended in defending the suit in the federal court was not named among the things indemnified against by the bond.
The language of the bond has been...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tomten v. Thomas
...in the words 'damage' and 'expense' by reason of and on account of suit as used in an indemnity bond. Employers' Indemnity Corp. v. Southwest Nat. Bank., Tex.Civ.App., 299 S.W. 676. Expenses in relation to property as used in a chattel mortgage covers attorneys' fees. Haczela v. Krupa, 219 ......
-
Home Indem. Co. v. City of Marianna, 86-194
...& Loan Assn., 292 P. 243, 50 Idaho 1 (1930); Col. Dev. Co. v. Creer, 80 P.2d 914, 96 Utah 1 (1938); Employers' Indemnity Corp. v. Southwest National Bank, 299 S.W. 676 (Tex.Civ.App.1927). Furthermore, Home could easily have eliminated the uncertainty by defining "damages" in its policy. It ......
-
In re Mason
... ... Pittsfield & N.A.R. Corporation v. Boston & A. R ... Co., 260 Mass. 390, 157 ... Employers' Indemnity Corporation v. Southwest Nat ... intention. Bowery Bank of New York v. Hart, 37 Misc ... 412, 75 ... ...
-
In re Mason
...to be a `damage' and `expense,' by reason of the suit mentioned in bond which covered such item. Employers' Indemnity Corporation v. Southwest Nat. Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 299 S.W. 676, 678. "`Expense,' as used in a receipt given by plaintiff to defendant on payment of a less sum than was due a......