Panama Refining Co. v. Crouch
| Decision Date | 22 February 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 7210.,7210. |
| Parties | PANAMA REFINING CO. v. CROUCH. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Lee, Porter & Latham, of Longview, F. W. Fischer, of Tyler, and Thompson, Knight, Baker & Harris and Pinkney Grissom, all of Dallas, for plaintiff in error.
Jones & Jones, of Marshall, and Julian P. Moseley, of Ennis, for defendant in error.
This case involves the construction of Articles 1999 and 2010 of the Revised Civil Statutes of Texas. Since such articles of the statutes, with respect to the precise question before us, have never been construed by this Court, a writ of error was granted to review the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals. 98 S.W.2d 271.
Leo Crouch filed suit against the Panama Refining Company, a corporation, and M. Ulmer, alleging that he sustained injuries on March 30, 1933, caused by the negligence of the defendants, while he was performing certain work as an employee of the defendants.
By his original petition, plaintiff sued the Panama Refining Company, describing it as a corporation, joint stock company, association, or a partnership composed of A. F. Anding and Tom Potter. Anding and Potter, as well as M. Ulmer, were sued individually. By its original answer, filed July 3, 1934, Panama Refining Company answered, styling itself a corporation. Both the original petition and the answer were abandoned prior to the trial. By amended petition plaintiff sued the Panama Refining Company, describing it as a corporation, and also sued M. Ulmer individually. To this petition the Panama Refining Company filed a general demurrer and general denial. Among other defenses was one that the work was being performed by M. Ulmer, an independent contractor; and if plaintiff received injuries, as alleged by him, it was while working for Ulmer as such independent contractor, and not for the Panama Refining Company.
The Panama Refining Company did not file a sworn denial of the fact that it was duly incorporated, as alleged by plaintiff, or show by its pleadings that such company was acting as a partnership at the time of plaintiff's injuries.
The case was submitted to a jury on special issues, and by virtue of the findings of the jury a judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff against the defendants. The Panama Refining Company appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals. The Court of Civil Appeals in its opinion made the following statement with reference to the testimony: "W. W. Sanders testified in substance that he was bookkeeper for Panama Refining Company in March and April, 1933; that the business changed to a corporation in the early part of May, 1933; that the charter was issued earlier than that, but that it did not go into a corporation until later; and that it was being operated as a partnership in March, 1933."
Plaintiff in error contends, in substance: (1) That the trial court should have instructed a verdict in its favor; and (2) that the burden was on the plaintiff to show that the Panama Refining Company was a corporation at the time he, the plaintiff, sustained his injuries, or that the company assumed liability for the acts of those committing the alleged tort.
Article 1999 reads as follows: "An allegation that a corporation was duly incorporated shall be taken as true, unless denied by the affidavit of the adverse party, his agent or attorney, whether such corporation is a public or private corporation and however created."
The pertinent part of Article 2010 reads: "An answer setting up any of the following matters, unless the truth of the pleadings appear of record, shall be verified by affidavit:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gulf Atlantic Life Ins. Co. v. Hurlbut
...388 S.W.2d 681, 687 (Tex.1965); Port Terminal Railroad Assoc. v. Ross, 155 Tex. 447, 289 S.W.2d 220 (1956); Panama Refining Co. v. Crouch, 132 Tex. 608, 124 S.W.2d 988, 990 (1939); Texas & New Orleans Ry. Co. v. Neill, 128 Tex. 580, 100 S.W.2d 348, 349 (1937); Horton v. Benson, 277 S.W. 105......
-
Texas Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Casstevens
...wherefore, that defense was completely untenable here, not only under the Jayroe holding itself, but under Panama Refining Co. v. Crouch, Tex.Sup., 124 S.W.2d 988, and the Dabbs case, Tex.Sup., 125 S.W.2d 1041, column 2, (1), as From the implications of the verdict it would also follow that......
-
Weatherhead v. Vavithis
...540, 544; Miller v. Hooper, Tex.Civ.App., 94 S.W.2d 230; Panama Refining Co. v. Crouch, Tex. Civ.App., 98 S.W.2d 271, affirmed 132 Tex. 608, 124 S.W.2d 988; Merchants Bldg. Corp. v. Adler, Tex.Civ.App., 110 S.W.2d 978; Jackson-Strickland Transp. Co. v. Seyler, Tex.Civ.App., 123 S.W.2d 928, ......
-
Crouch v. McGaw
...Judge (Panama Refining Company and others) from further interfering with the enforcement of a judgment of the Supreme Court, 132 Tex. 608, 124 S.W.2d 988. Writ Jones & Jones, of Marshall, J. E. Smith, of Longview, and C. A. Brian, of Marshall, for relators. Lee & Porter and Edward A. Brown,......