General Bonding & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Mount
Decision Date | 09 February 1916 |
Docket Number | (No. 921.)<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Citation | 183 S.W. 783 |
Parties | GENERAL BONDING & CASUALTY INS. CO. et al. v. MOUNT. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Action by R. N. Mount against the General Bonding & Casualty Insurance Company and another. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.
Locke & Locke, of Dallas, and Knight & Slaton, of Hereford, for plaintiffs in error. W. H. Russell and Gilliland & Estes, all of Hereford, for defendant in error.
This was an action, brought by defendant in error, Mount, against the General Bonding & Casualty Insurance Company and the Texas Surety & Casualty Organization Company. The cause of action was based on alleged fraudulent representations by Bell & Wright, agents for the Organization Company, in procuring a certain contract for stock in the proposed General Casualty Insurance Company. The Casualty Insurance Company was made a party alone for the purpose of canceling the contract so procured, and a judgment was asked for the sum of money paid to the Organization Company for its services performed and to be performed in the organization of the Casualty Company, which sum was $500 and interest thereon. The General Casualty Company disclaimed any interest in the contract, and the Organization Company, which was a partnership, setting out the partners, denied the fraud, etc. The trial court rendered judgment canceling the contract for stock in the proposed Casualty Insurance Company, and rendered a judgment against the Organization Company for the amount of money paid to it to organize the proposed corporation.
By the written contract, the defendant in error agreed to take 10 shares of the capital stock of the proposed company, of the par value of $100 each, and pay therefor the sum of $1,500, which was to pay for the capital stock and 12½ per cent. to surplus, and in addition $500 to the promoters. The defendant in error, Mount, testified:
He further testified:
The facts show that the Organization Company was composed of several members, who were acting as a partnership in the organization of the proposed Casualty Company, and that Bell & Wright had a contract with the Organization Company as soliciting agents. The contract in this case shows that Bell & Wright had no authority to make the agreement to take notes of the subscribers for stock in the proposed company, with 7 per cent. interest, secured by the stock in the company.
Wright testified:
The evidence shows that the subscription contract was upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bushnell v. Elkins
... ... 373; Phelps v. Grady, ... (Calif.) 141 P. 926; Bonding Co. v. Mount ... (Texas) 183 S.W. 783; Henry v. Building ... stock of general merchandise, fixtures, and unexpired Fire ... insurance ... ...
-
Hunter v. Camp
...84 Tex. 218, 19 S.W. 472; Jesse French Piano & Organ Co. v. Costley, Tex.Civ.App., 116 S.W. 135; General Bonding & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Mount, Tex.Civ.App., 183 S.W. 783; Russell v. Industrial Transportation Co., 113 Tex. 441, 251 S.W. 1034, 258 S.W. 462, 51 A.L.R. 1; Dowlin v. Boyd, Tex.Co......
-
Burcum v. Gaston
...acts of fraud by representation sufficient to cancel the contract. Mitchell v. Zimmerman, 4 Tex. 75, 51 Am. Dec. 717; Gen. Bonding, etc., v. Mount, 183 S. W. 783. We believe the trial court was in error in sustaining the general exception and in instructing a verdict for the defendant in th......
-
Harris v. Mann
...reason of the fraudulent representations of the defendant. United States Gypsum Co. v. Shields, 106 S. W. 725; General Bonding & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Mount, 183 S. W. 783; White v. Peters, 185 S. W. 659; Weeks v. Stevens, 155 S. W. The mere fact that the allegations are that the entire......