Glens Falls Ins. Co. v. Yarbrough
| Decision Date | 27 June 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 4150,4150 |
| Citation | 369 S.W.2d 640 |
| Parties | GLENS FALLS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Goldie Mae YARBROUGH et vir, Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Naman, Howell, Smith & Chase, Louis Muldrow, Waco, for appellant.
McLaughtlin, Clark, Fisher, Gorin & McDoland, George Clark, Waco, for appellees.
Mrs. Yarbrough, joined by her husband, brought this action against Glens Falls Insurance Company to set aside a workmen's compromise settlement agreement. Pertinent to this discussion plaintiffs alleged that Mrs. Yarbrough was a married woman at the time she executed such agreement without the joinder of her husband and that the instrument was, therefore, voidable as a matter of law. They further alleged that the agreement had been secured by certain misrepresentations made to Mrs. Yarbrough by a representative of the insurance carrier, which were fraudulent, and she relied upon them and executed such agreement and was injured thereby. After the verdict was received the Court overruled the carrier's motion to disregard the jury's answers to Issues 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 33 and 34, and to render judgment against plaintiff's for defendant, notwithstanding the verdict of the jury, on the ground that the evidence showed as a matter of law that Mrs. Yarbrough signed the agreement with her husband's consent and authority, and that she knew and understood the nature and effect of the agreement at the time she signed it, and that her husband ratified the execution of the agreement and she cashed the $300.00 check and they spent the proceeds; that she and her husband understood the nature and effect of the agreement when the $300.00 check was chased and the proceeds spent, and that Mrs. Yarbrough's compensation claim did not have a value in excess of $300.00. This motion was overruled and the Court granted plaintiff's motion for judgment on the verdict. In the judgment we find the recital:
'And it appearing to the Court from the evidence, the admissions and the findings of the jury that the compromise settlment agreement dated March 31, 1961 was executed by the plaintiff Mrs. Goldie Mae Yarbrough without the joinder of her husband Starkey Yarbrough and that no facts existed which authorized her to enter into such agreement without the joinder of her husband * * *',
and decreed that plaintiffs are entitled to have such compromise settlement agreement dated March 31, 1961 set aside and cancelled. The Court further found that since plaintiffs had cashed and received the $300.00 paid to Mrs. Yarbrough and had used said funds and are unable to return the same, and that they have offered to do equity, and since under the findings of the jury that plaintiffs were entitled to a sum in excess of $300.00 that they received in the compromise settlement agreement, and that plaintiffs have offered in their pleadings that the amount of $300.00 paid by defendant to Mrs. Yarbrough be credited against their right of recovery of any amount because of the injuries suffered by Mrs. Yarbrough, and decreed accordingly.
Appellant, in its motion non obstante veredicto, alleged substantially (among other things) that the evidence showed as a matter of law that Mrs. Yarbrough signed the compromise and settlement agreement with her husband's consent and authority.
Appellant's Point 28 is to the effect that the Court erred in concluding as a matter of law that the settlement papers were voidable because of the failure of Yarbrough to join in the execution. In appellant's brief we find this statement: '* * * appellant's point of error is that the evidence shows, as a matter of law, that Mrs. Yarbrough executed the compromise and settlement agreement with the consent and authority of her husband.' In oral argument one member of the Court asked appellant's counsel that if the record failed to show as a matter of law that the husband had constituted or authorized his wife as his agent to execute the agreement that such view would sustain the Trial Court's judgment in setting aside and canceling the compromise settlement agreement? To which he answered: 'Yes.' We agree.
In Texas, compensation benefits for injuries sustained by either husband or wife...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co. v. Few
...1, p. 638, sec. 432; 30 T.J.2d, p. 131, sec. 74; Pickens v. Pickens, 125 Tex. 410, 83 S.W .2d 951, 953 (1935); Glens Falls Insurance Co. v. Yarbrough, 369 S.W .2d 640, 642 (Tex.Civ.App., Waco, 1963, n.w.h.). This court in General Insurance Company of America v. Casper, 426 S.W.2d 606, writ ......
-
Glens Falls Insurance Company v. Yarbrough, 4417
...Fisher, Gorin & McDonald, George Clark, Waco, for appellees. TIREY, Justice. This is a compensation case and is the second appeal. See 369 S.W.2d 640. Perhaps we should say that in the first appeal Mrs. Yarbrough, joined by her husband, prevailed in a suit to set aside a compromise settleme......
-
Smith v. Anna-Manna, Inc.
...Vernon's Ann.Civ.Stats. The mortgaging of personal property is a disposition in part of the title thereof. Glens Falls Insurance Co. v. Yarbrough, Tex.Civ.App., 369 S.W.2d 640; Murchison v. Caruth Building Service, Tex.Civ.App., 369 S.W.2d 380, Ellis v. City of San Antonio, Tex.Civ.App., 34......
-
Travelers Insurance Company v. Jacks
...Employers Insurance Co., 374 S.W.2d 223 (Tex.S.Ct. 1963); Piro v. Piro, 327 S.W.2d 335 (Tex.Civ.App., wr. dism.); Glens Falls Insurance Co. v. Yarbrough, 369 S.W.2d 640 (Tex.Civ.App., n.w.h.). In the case before us, the final judgment was entered on June 14, 1968, but final judgment in the ......