Gaines v. Traders & General Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 05 October 1936 |
Docket Number | No. 4640.,4640. |
Citation | 99 S.W.2d 984 |
Parties | GAINES v. TRADERS & GENERAL INS. CO. et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Wilbarger County; W. N. Stokes, Judge.
Suit under the Workmen's Compensation Act by H. P. Gaines to set aside an award of the Industrial Accident Board in favor of the Traders & General Insurance Company and another. From a judgment denying relief, the plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
L. B. Godwin and Kimbrough & Boyce, all of Amarillo, for appellant.
T. R. Boone and Kearby Peery, both of Wichita Falls, and Lightfoot & Robertson, of Fort Worth, for appellees.
Appellant was injured while working as a carpenter on a per diem basis for the Vernon Meat Company. He filed a claim under the Texas Workmen's Compensation Law ( ) with the Industrial Accident Board. Thereafter, he filed this suit in district court to set aside an award of that Board, which was unsatisfactory to him. His cause of action was submitted on numerous special issues, all answered favorably to him. Upon a motion, non obstante veredicto, judgment was entered for appellee.
Appellant's contentions here are briefly in substance:
1. That his injury occurred while working as an employee for Vernon Meat Company in the usual course of the trade business and occupation of his employer, and therefore came within the terms of article 8309, § 1, par. 3, R.S.1925, and of the workmen's compensation policy issued by appellee to said company.
2. If not, such policy by its terms enlarged the liability of appellee under the Texas Workmen's Compensation Law so as to include him as an employee and to cover the injury sustained by him.
3. That if mistaken in both of these contentions, it was intended by both contracting parties to so include him, and the omission to do so was due to a mutual mistake of the contracting parties, and asked for a reformation of the policy and for judgment under it as so reformed.
4. Finally, he contends that appellee was estopped to set up the defense that he was so included.
His pleadings support all these contentions, and are not here questioned. The only question before us is the sufficiency of the evidence to support either.
The Vernon Meat Company was a wholesale dealer in "meats, fish and poultry" in the town of Vernon. It decided to construct a new addition to its plant, and to place therein a storage vault. Appellant, who had done casual jobs for this company sometimes, but was not a regular employee, was hired by the day as a carpenter on such work. He describes the incident of his injury as follows:
The stipulations of the policy, thought to be controlling, are as follows:
The policy herein sued on, containing the above, was delivered to and accepted by said Vernon Meat Company without complaint, and was in full force and effect on the date of appellant's injury.
An "employee" is defined by the Texas Workmen's Compensation statute (article 8309, § 1) as follows: "`Employe' shall mean every person in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Glidden Rural Elec. Co-Op. v. Iowa Employment Sec. Commission
... ... The Texas ... court in the case of Texas Employer's Ins. Ass'n v ... Wright, 128 Tex. 242, 97 S.W.2d 171, 172, in [236 Iowa 917] ... aside. So ordered.' ... [236 Iowa ... 919] In Gaines v. Traders & General Ins. Co. et al., ... Tex.Civ.App., 99 S.W.2d 984, ... ...
-
Pope v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
... ... Williams v. Baptist Church (Pa.) 186 A. 168; ... Gaines v. Traders and General Ins. Co. (Tex.) 99 ... S.W.2d 984; Caldwell v ... ...
-
Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. v. Allen
...3 Home Ins. Co. v. Lake Dallas Gin Co., Tex.Comm.App.1936, 127 Tex. 479, 93 S. W.2d 388, opinion adopted; Gaines v. Traders & General Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App. 1937, 99 S.W.2d 984, writ dism'd. And conversely, where the agent acts within his authority (and no fraud is being perpetrated against......
-
United States Fid. & Guar. Co v. Stubbs
...did not receive the premiums with such notice so as to estop it. Olsne's Case, 252 Mass. 108, 147 N.E. 350; Gaines v. Traders & General Insurance Co., Tex.Civ.App., 99 S.W.2d 984; Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v. Hunter, 184 Ga. 196, 190 S.E. 598. The operation in which the employee w......