Southern Surety Co. v. Crawford

• Decision Date: 13 May 1925
• Docket Number: (No. 8634.)<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL&gt
• Citation: 274 S.W. 280
• Parties: SOUTHERN SURETY CO. et al. v. CRAWFORD et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 280

274 S.W. 280

SOUTHERN SURETY CO. et al. v. CRAWFORD et al.

(No. 8634.)^*

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Galveston.

May 13, 1925.

Appeal from District Court, Galveston County; J. C. Canty, Judge.

Action by Nina H. Crawford and others against the Southern Surety Company and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Stewarts and Brantly Harris, both of Galveston, and A. J. De Lange, of Houston, for appellants.

Frank S. Anderson, of Galveston, for appellees.

GRAVES, J.

Appellees, as the heirs and beneficiaries of Geo. Y. Crawford, who was drowned by the capsizing of the ill-fated dredge boat Houston in Texas City channel August 17, 1915, recovered judgment herein against appellants on their policy of insurance to the Standard American Dredging Company for the benefit of its employees, whereby they agreed with the latter to pay to the proper representatives of any of its employees who suffered death while in the course of employment for it, as Crawford did, the benefits and compensation specified in the Texas Compensation Law of 1913 (Vernon's Ann. Civ. St. Supp. 1918, arts. 5246—1 to 5246—91.

Appellants, conceding that the recovery was proper under the pleadings and proof if the trial court had jurisdiction of the cause, assail the judgment on the sole ground that the controversy was one exclusively within the admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts, and seek a decree here so declaring.

We cannot accord it, regarding the question foreclosed in this court by its decision the other way in Southern Surety Co. v. Stubbs, 199 S. W. 343, and by its present conclusion, after careful reconsideration of the matter, that no sufficient reason has been assigned for overturning that holding. The same happening and policy of insurance gave rise to both cases, Stubbs and Crawford going down together as fellow employees on the dredge boat Houston, and being alike covered by the insurance their employer had so taken out with appellants. The conclusion arrived at in the Stubbs Case was thus epitomized:

"As is elsewhere herein stated, this was not a suit in personam against the owner of a vessel to recover either upon a contract, or for damages for a maritime or other character of tort, but was upon an insurance contract against an insurer, who voluntarily and for a valuable consideration assumed the obligation to pay compensation to the employé or his beneficiaries, upon the happening of an accidental injury while in the course of his employment, and who received the benefits of that contract in the premiums paid it for carrying the risk. We therefore think that, in these circumstances, its claim that appellees mistook their forum cannot be availed of."

Neither do we think the case of Southern Pacific v. Jensen, 244 U. S. 205, 37 S. Ct. 524, 61 L. Ed. 1086, L. R. A. 1918C, 451, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 900, which we formerly reviewed, nor the subsequent ones now first cited, such as Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U. S. 149, 40 S. Ct. 438, 64 L. Ed. 834, 11 A. L. R. 1145; Grant, etc., Ship Co. v. Rohde, 257 U. S. 469, 42 S. Ct. 157, 66 L. Ed. 321, 25 A. L. R. 1008; Western Fuel Co. v. Garcia, 257 U. S. 233, 42 S. Ct. 89, 66 L. Ed. 210; Chelentis v. Luckenbach, 247 U. S. 372, 38 S. Ct. 501, 62 L. Ed. 1171; State, etc., v. Nordenholt Corporation, 259 U. S. 263, 42 S. Ct. 473, 66 L. Ed. 933, 25 A. L. R. 1013; Peters v. Veasey, 251 U. S. 121, 40 S. Ct. 65, 64 L. Ed. 180; Clyde S. S. Co. v. Walker, 244 U. S. 255, 37 S. Ct. 545, 61 L. Ed. 1116; Great Lakes, etc., Co. v. Kierejewski, 261 U. S. 479, 43 S. Ct. 418, 67 L. Ed. 756 — upon all of which appellants rely, hold to a contrary doctrine when applied to a parallel state of facts with those that rule the cause at bar.

Here, under the unquestioned findings of the trial court, the dredge was not a seagoing vessel, nor even self-propelled, but had to be towed everywhere; nor was it at the time of this casualty mediately or immediately engaged in navigation or commerce as such of any nature, being then located up in the Texas City channel in Galveston bay within Galveston county, Tex., and actively at work dredging the channel at that local point.

Appellants were insurers doing business in Texas, being authorized under our 1913 Workmen's Compensation Law to insure...