Keen v. Texas Unemployment Compensation Commission, 11111.

• Decision Date: 13 February 1941
• Docket Number: No. 11111.,11111.
• Citation: 148 S.W.2d 211
• Parties: KEEN v. TEXAS UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

148 S.W.2d 211

KEEN v. TEXAS UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION.

No. 11111.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Galveston.

February 13, 1941.

Appeal from Matagorda County Court; Thos. H. Lewis, Judge.

Action by George R. Keen, Jr., against the Texas Unemployment Compensation Commission to recover unemployment benefits under the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act. From a judgment for the defendant, the plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

H. C. Keen, of Beaumont, for appellant.

T. L. Foster, of Dallas, and Joiner Cartwright, John B. Thomas, and Chas. F. Heidrick, all of Beaumont, for Sun Oil Co. as amicus curiæ.

Gerald C. Mann, Atty. Gen. of Texas, and Glenn R. Lewis, Morris Hodges, and

Lee Shoptaw, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

MONTEITH, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Matagorda County denying appellant, George R. Keen, Jr., unemployment benefits under the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act.

The trial was before the court upon the following agreed statement of facts as an agreed case under Article 2177, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes.

"1. Plaintiff is George R. Keen, Jr., a resident of Matagorda County, Texas. The defendant is the Texas Unemployment Compensation Commission, of which Orville S. Carpenter, C. R. Miller and Patrick D. Moreland are members. That proper service has been had on all parties.

"That this suit is an appeal under Article 5221b—4, of the Revised Statutes of the State of Texas [Vernon's Ann.Civ. St. art. 5221b—4], from a final order of the Texas Unemployment Compensation Commission denying payment of benefits to the plaintiff herein, who was Claimant below, and involved a claim under the Texas Unemployment Laws—Article 5221b —1 et seq.

"3. Claimant, George R. Keen, Jr., resigned his position with an oil company at Beaumont, Texas, in September, 1938, to immediately enter the University of Texas and has been a full time student in that institution working for his degree since that time; was said student on July 12, 1939, when he filed his initial claim and is still enrolled as a full time student working for his degree. He has had no employment since entering the University. His actual class attendance is from 9 A.M. to 1 P.M., and he is available for work after 1 P.M. and before 9 A.M.; that the time required for study outside the four class work hours would not interfere with doing eight hours work between 1 P.M. and 9 A.M. He is not available for any employment that required his services between 9 A.M. and 1 P.M.

"4. Claimant was denied benefits because he was a full time student in the University of Texas and not available for work. No other disqualification for benefits is involved herein.

"5. In the event Claimant is eligible to receive benefits from the Commission he would be entitled to such sum as is provided for by law, to wit, $158.50 payable in biweekly installments of $30 each.

"6. The Claimant has satisfied each and every requirement so far as procedure is concerned under the Act and has made the various claims and given the proper notices, filed suit within the time required, and this cause is properly before this Court so far as matters of procedure and other formal matters are concerned."

The trial court held in his judgment that appellant was not available for work under the requirements of the Unemployment Compensation Act and denied recovery thereunder.

This case involves the construction of Article 5221b—2, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes of Texas, and presents the question of whether, under above facts, appellant, who voluntarily resigned from his employment to enter school and who was admittedly not...