Spears & Kattman v. Netherlands Fire Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 09 March 1903 |
| Citation | 72 S.W. 1018 |
| Parties | SPEARS & KATTMAN et al. v. NETHERLANDS FIRE INS. CO. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Harris County Court; E. H. Vasmer, Judge.
Action by the Netherlands Fire Insurance Company against Spears & Kattman and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed.
Byers & Byers, for appellants. Watkins & Jones, for appellee.
This suit was brought by the appellee insurance company against Spears & Kattman to recover $315, alleged to have been collected by them on fire insurance policies as agents of appellee, and wrongfully withheld by them from the company. Spears & Kattman had given bond for the faithful performance of their duties as agents of appellee, and the sureties on the bond were also made defendants to this suit.
Spears & Kattman answered, admitting the collection and detention of the money as alleged and conceding the right of appellee to a judgment therefor. But, in offset and reconvention, they alleged that, subsequent to the date of the bond and contract of agency sued on, they entered into an agreement with the company whereby, in consideration of the sum of $299.20 paid to the company by the said agents, the company agreed to enlarge its line of insurance and permit the agents to write policies on cotton in compresses, and upon cotton seed and its products, and other property not necessary to be here mentioned. That, in consideration of this agreement and the enlarged field of business which would thus be opened to them, they paid the said sum of $299.20. That thereafter the company failed and refused to allow them to enlarge their line of insurance risks, but, instead thereof, curtailed the same, and shortly thereafter withdrew from the state of Texas and ceased to do business therein. That the purpose to so withdraw had been formed when the contract of agency was made, but was unknown to appellants. That appellee is a foreign corporation which has ceased to do business in this state. That its domicile is The Hague, Holland, to which country it has retreated. That it has no property in this state, and no person or agent in this state upon whom binding service can be had in case appellants should seek a judgment against them in an independent proceeding, and that, unless they are allowed to prosecute this cross-action, they will lose their claim. They therefore pray for judgment against the company for said sum of $299.20, and that same be offset against the company's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seelbinder v. American Surety Co
... ... should be allowed ... Spears ... and Kattman v. Netherlands Fire Insurance Co., 72 ... ...
-
Harding v. Yarbrough
...Wanhscaffe v. Pontoja (Tex. Civ. App.) 63 S. W. 663; Kalteyer v. Wipff (Tex. Civ. App.) 65 S. W. 207; Spears & Kattmann v. Netherlands Fire Ins. Co., 31 Tex. Civ. App. 567, 72 S. W. 1018; Bullitt v. Coryell, 38 Tex. Civ. App. 42, 85 S. W. 482; Bateman v. Hipp, 51 Tex. Civ. App. 405, 111 S. ......
-
Montgomery v. Gallas
...of the property arose out of appellant's cause of action and was incident to and connected with it. Spears & Kattmann v. Insurance Co., 31 Tex. Civ. App. 567, 72 S. W. 1018; Tyson v. Jackson Bros., 41 Tex. Civ. App. 128, 90 S. W. 930; Bateman v. Hipp, 51 Tex. Civ. App. 405, 111 S. W. 972. W......