Georgia Casualty Co. v. McClure
Decision Date | 22 March 1922 |
Docket Number | (No. 778.) |
Citation | 239 S.W. 644 |
Parties | GEORGIA CASUALTY CO. v. McCLURE.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Liberty County; J. L. Manry, Judge.
Suit by the Georgia Casualty Company against M. A. McClure, to set aside a decision of the Industrial Accident Board. Judgment for defendant sustaining a decision of the Board, and allowing damages and attorney's fee, and plaintiff appeals. Judgment modified by striking therefrom the allowance of damages and attorney's fee, and, as reformed, affirmed.
Frank S. Anderson, of Galveston, for appellant.
E. B. Pickett, Jr., of Liberty, for appellee.
O'QUINN, J.
This was a suit brought by appellant, Georgia Casualty Company, against appellee, M. A. McClure, to set aside the final ruling and decision of the Industrial Accident Board rendered October 3, 1920, awarding appellee compensation at the maximum rate of $15 per week, beginning June 1, 1920, and continuing for a period of not to exceed 401 weeks from and after May 24, 1920.
Appellee answered, and alleged that, within 20 days after rendition of said final ruling and decision of the Industrial Accident Board, appellant gave written notice to the Industrial Accident Board and to appellee that it would not agree to and was not willing to be bound by said final ruling and decision of said Board, and that suit would be filed to set aside said final ruling and award; that said notice was given on the 3d day of November, 1920, and that appellant did not file suit to set aside said final ruling and decision within 20 days after giving said notice as required by law, and also that appellant failed to abide by and comply with the terms and provisions of article 5246—44, Vernon's Ann. Civil Statutes 1918, and prayed for judgment against appellant for the full sum allowed by the Industrial Accident Board, $6,015, together with 12% damages on same and a reasonable attorney's fee, which was alleged to be $2,250.
Upon a trial before the court without a jury, judgment was rendered in favor of appellee for compensation for total incapacity at the maximum rate of $15 per week, beginning June 1, 1920, and continuing thereafter down to and including the date of the judgment, and to continue in the future unless altered or modified by the Industrial Accident Board, or by agreement between the parties approved by the Industrial Accident Board, but in no event to continue longer than 401 weeks, and allowing appellee the sum of $721.80 as 12% damages upon the full amount of compensation ($6,015), and the further sum of $2,000 as attorney's fees, to which said judgment appellant excepted, and has brought this appeal.
At the request of appellant the court filed his findings of fact and conclusions of law, which are:
Appe...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Consolidated Underwriters v. Saxon
...out of matters connected with deceased's work, and hence the injury was received in the course of his employment. Georgia Casualty Co. v. McClure (Tex. Civ. App.) 239 S. W. 644; Employers' Indemnity Corp. v. Kirkpatrick (Tex. Civ. App.) 214 S. W. 956; Lumbermen's Reciprocal Association v. B......
-
McClure v. Georgia Casualty Co.
...Judgment in insurance carrier's suit to set aside an award by the Industrial Accident Board modified by the Court of Civil Appeals (239 S. W. 644), and claimant and insurance carrier bring error. E. B. Pickett, Jr., of Liberty, for plaintiff in error. Frank S. Anderson, of Galveston, for de......
-
Keithley v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.
... ... compensable. Typical of these are: Georgia Casualty Co ... v. McClure (Tex.), 239 S.W. 644, 647; Steel Co. v ... Flannery, 163 N.E. 841; ... ...
-
Texas Reciprocal Ins. Ass'n v. Leger
...plaintiff suffered the injuries. "Authorities: Article 8307, Revised Civil Statutes of the State of Texas, § 5a; Georgia Casualty Co. v. McClure (Tex. Civ.App.) 239 S.W. 644; Minor v. London Guarantee & Accident Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 267 S.W. 1020; Id. (Tex.Com.App.) 280 S.W. 163; Arter v. Sou......