Pruitte v. Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corporation, 4026.
Citation | 40 S.W.2d 254 |
Decision Date | 02 July 1931 |
Docket Number | No. 4026.,4026. |
Parties | PRUITTE et al. v. OCEAN ACCIDENT & GUARANTEE CORPORATION, Limited. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
Appeal from District Court, Marion County; R. T. Wilkinson, Judge.
Suit by William Pruitte and others against the Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corporation, Limited, insurance carrier of Marshall Compress Company and of Jefferson Compress Company, employers, to set aside decision of the Industrial Board adverse to plaintiffs. From an adverse judgment, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed as to one cause of action, and reversed and remanded as to the other cause of action.
S. P. Jones and Franklin Jones, both of Marshall, for appellants.
Bibb & Bibb, of Marshall, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Marion county sustaining certain pleas of appellee to the jurisdiction of the court and dismissing causes No. 9687 and No. 9716 which had theretofore been consolidated by the court. It is alleged that Frank Pruitte, while working for the Marshall Compress at Marshall, Tex., on August 29, 1928, received an injury (heat prostration); that said Pruitte partially recovered from this injury, and on August 31, 1928, while working for the Jefferson Compress at Jefferson, Tex., received another such injury from which he died on September 6, 1928.
On September 15, 1928, Wm. Pruitte gave the following notice of fatal injury upon a form furnished by the Industrial Accident Board:
On the same date he filed the following claim for compensation with the Industrial Accident Board:
On November 14, 1928, the Industrial Accident Board made the following order:
No notice of dissatisfaction with this award was filed with the board within twenty days as required by the provisions of this act, nor was any appeal taken from the board's ruling. In fact, no further proceedings were had with reference to such claim until January 9, 1929, when Wm. Pruitte filed a motion with the board to reopen the case and reconsider the award entered on November 14, 1928.
On January 22, 1929, Wm. Pruitte qualified as guardian of Ester Pruitte, the minor referred to in the claim filed by Wm. Pruitte with the board.
On February 28, 1929, another order refusing to reopen the award of November 14, 1928, was made by the board, and within twenty days the appellants gave notice of their dissatisfaction with the board's ruling, which notice is as follows:
Still another motion was made by the beneficiaries of Frank Pruitte to the board to reopen the award of November 14, 1928, which was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Baldwin, State Treasurer v. Scullion
...... employment, but was the result of an accident. Dragovich. v. Iroquois Iron Co., (Ill.) 109 ... Esposito v. Marlin-Rockwell Corporation, 96 Conn. 414, 114 A. 92, compensable injury. ......
-
Consolidated Underwriters v. Adams, 5472.
...(same as here), was sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Board over the claim of the estranged husband. In Pruitte v. Ocean Accident & Guaranty Co., 40 S.W. 2d 254, 258, this court held that it was not necessary for each beneficiary to a separate claim to the Industrial Accident Board b......
-
American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Villagomez
...and was insufficient to confer jurisdiction on the board. Booth v. Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n, supra; Pruitte v. Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp., 40 S.W.2d 254 (Tex.Civ.App.1931), reversed on other grounds, 58 S.W.2d 41 In view of our holding herein it is unnecessary to pass on petitioner......
-
Gayler v. Renfro, 8924
...beneficiary on behalf of himself and other beneficiaries is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the Board. Pruitte v. Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp., 40 S.W.2d 254, 258 (Tex.Civ.App.- Texarkana), Rev'd on other grounds, 58 S.W.2d 41 (Tex.Comm'n App.1933). The Board acquires jurisdict......