Moxon v. Ray

• Court: Texas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Critz
• Citation: Moxon v. Ray, 81 S.W.2d 488, 125 Tex. 24 (Tex. 1935)
• Decision Date: 03 April 1935
• Docket Number: No. 1829-6465.,1829-6465.
• Parties: MOXON et al. v. RAY et al.

81 S.W.2d 488

MOXON et al. v. RAY et al.

No. 1829-6465.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

April 3, 1935.

Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Seventh Supreme Judicial District.

Suit by L. Moxon, by his next friend, against E. E. Ray and another. A judgment for plaintiff was reversed by the Court of Civil Appeals [56 S.W.(2d) 469], and plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

Thomas & McDonald, of Big Spring, for plaintiff in error.

Touchstone, Wight, Gormley & Price, of Dallas, for defendant in error.

CRITZ, Commissioner.

The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals in this case is reported in 56 S.W.(2d) 469. In the case of Kuntz v. Spence, 67 S.W (2d) 254, this section of the commission adopted Judge Martin's opinion in the instant case. The opinion in the Kuntz Case, supra, settles the issue of misjoinder in this case in accordance with the views expressed by Judge Martin's opinion. No good can be accomplished by further discussion here.

It will be noted that the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals in the instant case contains the following statement: "The Monzingo v. Jones Case [(Tex. Civ. App.) 34 S.W.(2d) 662], supra, construes a policy required by law to be taken out by motorbus operators and by statute is required to be so written as to give the injured party an affirmative right of action thereon."

Monzingo v. Jones (Tex. Civ. App.) 34 S.W.(2d) 662, holds that an insurance company which has issued an insurance policy to a bus operator under the provisions of section 11 of article 911a, Vernon's Ann. Civ. St. (volume 2), can be sued on such policy in a damage suit for negligence against the insured. We do not...