Great American Indemnity Co. v. McMenamin
Decision Date | 29 November 1939 |
Docket Number | No. 10626.,10626. |
Citation | 134 S.W.2d 734 |
Parties | GREAT AMERICAN INDEMNITY CO. v. McMENAMIN et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Seventy-Third District Court, Bexar County; John F. Onion, Judge.
Suit by F. J. McMenamin against the Great American Indemnity Company to recover $3,000 allegedly due on judgment in suit by plaintiff against Paramount Pictures Distributing Company, Inc., on account of a collision with automobile operated by one L. C. Lowe in the course of his employment with Paramount Pictures Distributing Company, Inc., of which the Great American Indemnity Company was the insurance carrier, wherein Josh H. Groce intervened and claimed an 11/12 interest in the judgment by purchase and alleged that he was entitled to recover 11/12 of the amount due on the judgment. From the judgment rendered, the Great American Indemnity Company appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
John P. Giles, Nat L. Hardy, Johnson & Rogers, and T. M. West, all of San Antonio, for appellant.
Eskridge & Groce, of San Antonio, for appellees.
F. J. McMenamin instituted this suit in the 73rd District Court of Bexar County against Great American Indemnity Company, seeking to recover the sum of $3,000.00, alleged to be the amount due on the judgment in a certain cause styled F. J. McMenamin v. Paramount Pictures Distributing Company, Inc., and being cause No. B-84724, in the 45th District Court of Bexar County. McMenamin sought to recover from the Great American Indemnity Company as the insurance carrier of a certain automobile operated by one L. C. Lowe in the course of his employment by Paramount Picture Distributing Company, and with which automobile McMenamin had a collision in the State of Tennessee.
Josh H. Groce intervened in the suit, setting up that he had acquired, by purchase, an eleven-twelfths interest in the judgment and was entitled to recover eleven-twelfths of the amount due on the judgment. It is apparent that Josh H. Groce, in purchasing an eleven-twelfths interest in the judgment, did so largely in the interest of the Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., he being an attorney for such corporation in connection with the matters out of which the original controversy arose.
L. C. Lowe was a traveling salesman for the Paramount Pictures Distributing Company, Inc., which shall hereafter be referred to as Paramount Pictures. Lowe traveled in an automobile owned by himself. Lowe carried an insurance policy on his car with the Great American Indemnity Company, which will hereafter be referred to as Great American, and his employer, Paramount Pictures, carried a policy covering all automobiles not owned by Paramount Pictures, but used by its employees in its business. The Great American contends, among other things, that its policy was not to be resorted to, due to the policy of the Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Employers' Liability), while the Employers' Liability contends that its policy was not to be resorted to, due to the policy of the Great American.
The trial was before the court, without the intervention of a jury, and the court rendered judgment against the Great American for the sum of $3000.00, together with interest, and apportioned it eleven-twelfths to Josh H. Groce and one-twelfth to F. J. McMenamin, from which judgment the Great American has appealed.
The trial judge made findings of facts and also additional findings of facts, which will be here copied:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Citizens Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.
...270; Travelers Indemnity Co. v. State Automobile Insurance Co., 1941, 67 Ohio App. 457, 37 N.E.2d 198; Great American Indemnity Co. v. McMenamin, Tex. Civ.App.1939, 134 S.W.2d 734. This group of cases sustains the view that "excess insurance" is not considered to be "other valid and collect......
-
United Services Automobile Association v. Russom
...2d 376, error refused, NRE, while carefully avoiding San Antonio, the situs of its home office, because of Great American Indemnity Co. v. McMenamin, Tex. Civ.App., 134 S.W.2d 734, writ of error dismissed, correct judgment, which it classes along with Ranallo. United asserts that the testim......
-
Russom v. United Services Automobile Association
...the construction of United Services' policy would be controlled by the Texas law, and under the case of Great American Indemnity Co. v. McMenamin, Tex.Civ.App., 134 S.W.2d 734, Standard's policy would be excess and United Services' would be primary. However, the plaintiffs and Standard went......
-
American Surety Company of NY v. Canal Ins. Co.
...22, 165 S.W.2d 838; Travelers Indemnity Co. v. State Automobile Ins. Co., 67 Ohio App. 457, 37 N.E.2d 198; Great American Indemnity Co. v. McMenamin, Tex.Civ.App., 134 S.W.2d 734; Central Surety & Ins. Corp. v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America, 181 Wash. 353, 43 P.2d Canal point......