San Antonio Life Ins. Co. v. Griffith
Decision Date | 04 March 1916 |
Docket Number | (No. 8327.) |
Citation | 185 S.W. 335 |
Parties | SAN ANTONIO LIFE INS. CO. v. GRIFFITH. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Wichita County; E. W. Nicholson, Judge.
Action by W. L. Griffith against the San Antonio Life Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff for part of the amount sued for, and defendant appeals, and plaintiff files a cross-appeal. Modified by reducing the amount, and affirmed.
John F. Onion, of Dallas, and Carrigan, Montgomery & Britain, of Wichita Falls, for appellant. Chauncey & Davenport, of Wichita Falls, for appellee.
Suit was brought by W. L. Griffith, appellee, against the appellants, San Antonio Life Insurance Company and Harry L. Seay, liquidating agent of said company for damages on account of the alleged breach of a contract by the San Antonio Life Insurance Company, claiming damages and asking for judgment against appellants in the sum of $1,021. Appellee alleged in his petition that on or about August 19, 1914, the San Antonio Life Insurance Company entered into a written contract with him, employing him as an agent of said company to solicit and write applications for life insurance in defendant company, and that plaintiff —
etc.
He further alleged that:
"He was earning, and his time was reasonably worth, the sum of $193.25 per month, and he would have earned said amount per month during the time which he lost if the defendant company had made advancements to plaintiff as it had contracted to do."
He further alleged that for some time prior to the execution of the contracts pleaded he had been engaged in the business of fire insurance and real estate in Wichita Falls, and that in order to accept the terms of employment with defendant company, he was forced to give up said business, and that, because of the general business depression prevailing, he was unable to sell the same for any sum of money and was forced to give said business away. He alleged that said business and office fixtures were reasonably worth $538, for which he sued. He further claimed damages for the 2½ months alleged to have been lost by reason of defendant's failure to furnish money in the way of advancements, for which he asked judgment in the sum of $483. He further alleged that defendant was due him the further sum of $180.51 on the first year premium notes, which were approved and accepted by the defendant company, for which he prayed judgment. A jury having been waived, the court rendered judgment for plaintiff in the several amounts hereinafter mentioned, to wit, for loss of time, $482.50, for balance due plaintiff on first year premium notes, $180.51, making a total of $663.01, and denied judgment for the loss of the business and office fixtures as claimed. Defendant appeals, and plaintiff, by cross-assignment, alleges error to the action of the court in denying his claim for damages as to his insurance and real estate business and office fixtures.
It appears that plaintiff, at the instance of defendant, went to San Antonio to discuss the matter of his engagement with said company, and explained to the president of said company that he was without funds to carry on the business, and would require some advancements to be made to him on the first year's premium notes, which he might take. Two contracts were entered into on the same date, but, as the second is the one upon which plaintiff bases his cause of action, we will pretermit any reference to the first contract. The second one is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morgan v. Young, 4386.
...any obligation he may have owed to procure these funds. It was so held (burden of pleading and of proof) in San Antonio Life Insurance Co. v. Griffith, Tex.Civ.App., 185 S.W. 335, a case involving a breach of a contract to lend money. The burden of procuring a submission of this defense to ......
-
American Guarantee v. Shel-Ray Underwriters
...is "difficult to comprehend or distinguish, or of doubtful import," as there is "doubt as to its true meaning." See San Antonio Life Insurance Co. v. Griffith, 185 S.W. 335 (Tex. Civ.App. — Fort Worth 1916, no writ); O'Shea v. Coronado Transmission Co., 656 S.W.2d at 561; see also Goff v. S......
-
Superior Oil Co. v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co.
...the lease is doubtful and it is capable of two constructions. This being true, the lease contract is ambiguous. San Antonio Life Ins. Co. v. Griffith, Tex.Civ.App., 185 S.W. 335, no writ history; Business Men's Assurance Ass'n v. Read, Tex.Civ.App., 48 S.W.2d 678, no writ history; Tom v. Ro......
-
Goff v. Southmost Sav. & Loan Ass'n
...Co., 412 S.W.2d at 718. An instrument is ambiguous if "difficult to comprehend or distinguish, of doubtful import," San Antonio Life Insurance Co. v. Griffith, 185 S.W. 335 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1916, no writ). O'Shea, 656 S.W.2d at 561 mentions "doubt as to the true meaning of an ambig......