Morris v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 2833.
| Decision Date | 27 January 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 2833.,2833. |
| Citation | 217 S.W.2d 678 |
| Parties | MORRIS v. FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, McLennan County; R. B. Stanford, Judge.
Suit upon a judgment by Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, a corporation, against Robert Lee Morris. From an adverse judgment, defendant appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Rex Emerson, of Waco, for appellant.
Clark & Fisher, of Waco, for appellee.
This is a suit by the appellee against the appellant upon a judgment rendered in its favor against the appellant by the District Court of Ellis County, Kansas. The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.
Plaintiff's petition in this suit properly described the judgment sued upon, and alleged further that the judgment was recovered by the plaintiff against the defendant upon the indemnity and subrogation agreement signed and executed by the defendant in his application for fidelity bond No. 4342472—50 issued by the plaintiff upon the application of the defendant, wherein and whereby plaintiff covenanted to reimburse defendant's employer, Duncan Coffee Company, for any and all loss occasioned to said Duncan Coffee Company due to any acts of fraud or embezzlement committed by the defendant or for any willful misappropriation or misapplication or wrongful abstraction of funds belonging to the said Duncan Coffee Company; that said judgment against defendant was for funds belonging to defendant's employer, Duncan Coffee Company, which were willfully and wantonly converted by the defendant to his own use without the knowledge or consent of his employer, and that the defendant's acts amounted to a willful and malicious injury to the property of his employer, Duncan Coffee Company; and the court, in this suit, found such to be the facts and incorporated the same in its judgment.
The only complaint asserted by the defendant against the judgment is by reason of the above findings made by the court below. The defendant contends that the foreign judgment sued upon was a mere personal judgment for debt, and since the judgment rendered herein should correspond in character, terms and amount of judgment sued on, the trial court erred in amending, enlarging and adding to said original judgment the above unauthorized findings and adjudication. He contends (1) that the court had no jurisdiction to make such findings, and (2) that the court had no legal evidence upon which to predicate such findings.
The plaintiff's petition in the District Court in Kansas alleged that upon the application of the defendant it executed as surety its bond to the defendant's employer, Duncan Coffee Company, as obligee, by the terms of which it covenanted to reimburse said Coffee Company for any and all loss occasioned to it by or due to any acts of fraud or embezzlement committed by the defendant or for any willful misappropriation or misapplication or wrongful abstraction of funds belonging to the Duncan Coffee Company and coming into the hands of the defendant or under his control as its employee; that while the bond was in full force and effect the Duncan Coffee Company presented its claim and furnished proof to the plaintiff that the defendant, while in its employ, had collected and not remitted or otherwise accounted for and had wrongfully misappropriated funds belonging to it and coming into the hands of the defendant in excess of the sum of $2000; that it was required to pay the Duncan Coffee Company, under the terms of said bond, the sum of $1989; that by the terms of the application for said bond the defendant agreed to indemnify the plaintiff against all loss, liability, costs, damages and expense that the plaintiff might sustain or incur by reason of executing said bond; that the plaintiff demanded of the defendant to reimburse it for its loss, which he refused to do.
A copy of the proceedings, judgment and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matthews v. Franklin, 3873
...trial court's reasons for judgment reduced to writing. The petitioner bases his claim on the holdings of Morris v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., Tex.Civ.App., 217 S.W.2d 678, 10 A.L.R.2d 432, and In re Minsky, D.C., 46 F.Supp. 104. In Morris v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. the petitioner sued in Texas ......
-
Hatch v. Hatch
...Neither party will recover costs. * Redding, J., did not particiipate in this decision.1 Cf., Morris v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 217 S.W.2d 678, 10 A.L.R.2d 432 (Tex.Civ.App.1949).2 See Picker v. Vollenhover, 206 Or. 45, 290 P.2d 789 (1955); Cousineau v. Cousineau, 155 Or. 184, 6......