Lewis v. Independent School Dist. of City of Austin
Decision Date | 25 March 1942 |
Docket Number | No. 7847.,7847. |
Citation | 161 S.W.2d 450 |
Parties | LEWIS v. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. OF CITY OF AUSTIN et al. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by C. H. Lewis against the Independent School District of the City of Austin, and others, for an injunction against the purchase by defendants of a policy of fire insurance from a certain insurer. From an adverse judgment, the plaintiff appeals to the Court of Civil Appeals. To review a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, 147 S.W.2d 298, affirming the judgment, the plaintiff brings error.
Judgments of the Trial Court and of the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and cause remanded with instructions to grant the injunction.
Hardy Hollers, of Austin, for plaintiff in error.
Patterson & Patterson, J. M. Patterson, and White, Taylor & Gardner, all of Austin, for School Dist.
Nicholas S. Kiefer and Brown, Carlson, Kiefer & Kunke, all of Chicago, Ill., and
Black, Graves & Stayton and Ireland Graves, all of Austin, for Insurance Co.
This action was instituted by C. H. Lewis against the Independent School District of the City of Austin and others for an injunction against the purchase by the officials of the district of a policy of fire insurance from the Millers Mutual Fire Insurance Company of Texas, incorporated under the laws of Texas. On trial to the court upon an agreed statement of facts, the injunction was denied. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. 147 S.W.2d 298. This Court granted a writ of error.
The Independent School District of the City of Austin will be referred to in this opinion as the School District, and the Millers Mutual Fire Insurance Company of Texas will be referred to as the Insurance Company.
The sole question here presented is whether the Legislature, by the enactment of Article 4860a—8, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, could constitutionally authorize the School District, a political corporation, to purchase a policy of mutual insurance.
The following facts were agreed to by the parties to this suit: Plaintiff is a resident property-owning taxpayer within the School District; the Insurance Company is a mutual insurance corporation, which has no capital stock, its fund coming from the purchase of insurance by its members; the Insurance Company was incorporated under the laws of the State of Texas, and no question is raised as to its standing with the Insurance Commissioner of this State or as to its financial stability; because the Insurance Company has a surplus in excess of $100,000, the Board of Insurance Commissioners has recognized its right to issue, and the Insurance Company has proceeded to issue, nonassessable policies.
Article 4860a—1 et seq., Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, relate to mutual insurance companies, and prescribe the method of incorporation, the nature of the policies they may issue, and the details of the operation of such companies in this State.
Article 4860a—8 reads as follows:
Article 4860a—10 provides in part as follows: (Italics ours.)
Acting through its Board of Trustees, the School District proposed to buy, and the Insurance Company agreed to sell to the School District, a nonassessable policy of fire insurance, to cover certain school property within the district, at a price within the premium rates fixed for fire insurance rates generally by the Board of Insurance Commissioners. The policy has been delivered, but no payment has been made therefor. It is agreed that the Board of Trustees will pay the premium for such insurance, unless restrained by court order.
The by-laws of the Insurance Company, which are referred to and made a part of the policy of insurance, provide in part as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Harkless v. Sweeny Independent Sch. Dist. of Sweeny, Tex., Civ. A. No. 66-G-34.
...character as municipal corporations." Love v. City of Dallas, 120 Tex. 351, 40 S.W.2d 20 (1931); accord, Lewis v. Independent School Dist., 139 Tex. 83, 161 S.W.2d 450 (1942). Texas school districts thus are within the letter of the Monroe decision, as well as its spirit. 38 Glancy v. Parol......
-
Public Housing Administration v. Housing Authority of City of Bogalusa
...State of Texas, has announced views similar to those expressed by the Court of Appeal herein. See Lewis v. Independent School Dist. of City of Austin, 139 Tex. 83, 161 S.W.2d 450 (1942). In view of counsel's contention that the Court of Appeal erroneously applied the Fourth Clause of Sectio......
-
Coalition to Preserve Houston v. INTERIM BD., ETC.
...Love v. City of Dallas, 120 Tex. 351, 40 S.W.2d 20, 26 (1931) (citation omitted); accord, Lewis v. Independent School District of City of Austin, 139 Tex. 83, 161 S.W.2d 450 (1942); Watts v. Double Oak Independent School District, 377 S.W.2d 779 (Tex.Civ.App. — Ft. Worth 1964, no writ). By ......
-
Hander v. San Jacinto Junior College
...500 (1935). See also Harkless v. Sweeny Independent School District, 427 F.2d 319 (5th Cir. 1970); Lewis v. Independent School Dist., City of Austin, 139 Tex. 83, 161 S.W.2d 450 (1942). Cf. DuPuy v. State, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 595, 121 S.W.2d 1003 In addition to the order reinstating Hander in his......