Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n v. Wright
Decision Date | 14 June 1938 |
Docket Number | No. 3286.,3286. |
Parties | TEXAS EMPLOYERS INS. ASS'N v. WRIGHT et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Sabine County; F. P. Adams, Judge.
Suit by Wesley Wright and others against the Texas Employers Insurance Association to set aside an award of the Industrial Accident Board which denied compensation for injuries sustained by G. H. (George) Wright, the employee, who was employed by the Temple Lumber Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
R. E. Minton, of Lufkin, and Minton & Minton, of Hemphill, for appellant.
J. R. Beck and W. R. Cousins, both of Beaumont, and L. E. King, of Hemphill, for appellees.
O'QUINN, Justice.
This is a compensation case by appellees, the heirs of Sallie Wright, against appellant, Texas Employers Insurance Association, filed in the district court of Sabine County as an appeal from an adverse award of the Industrial Accident Board; appellant was the compensation insurance carrier; Temple Lumber Company the employer; G. H. (George) Wright the employee, who died the 20th day of March, 1934; Sallie Wright, the surviving widow of George Wright, died the 26th day of July, 1935— she and her deceased husband had no children; appellees are the heirs of Sallie Wright, deceased, and as such filed this claim before the Industrial Accident Board for compensation for the death of George Wright, and filed and prosecuted this appeal from the award of the Industrial Accident Board. On the verdict of the jury, finding the basic facts, judgment was entered in favor of appellees against appellant for compensation at the rate of $18.48 per week for 360 weeks, beginning the 20th day of March, 1934. From the judgment appellant has duly prosecuted its appeal to this court.
We quote appellant's first proposition advanced under the seventh assignment of error:
"This suit being by the heirs of Sallie Wright for a chose in action, filed within four years after her death, it was indispensable that plaintiffs should both allege and prove that there was no administration pending on her estate and that none was necessary."
We quote appellant's seventh assignment of error:
"The trial court erred in overruling defendant's motion for instructed verdict, because the plaintiffs wholly failed to discharge the burden of proof resting upon them to show continuing good cause existing at all times prior to the filing of claim with Industrial Accident Board on July 29th, 1935, for the failure of Sallie Wright to file a claim for compensation with the Industrial Accident Board during said period of time."
The proposition is not germane to the seventh assignment of error, nor to any other assignment of error brought forward by appellant in its brief. Under the following rule announced by 3 Tex.Jur. 887, the proposition is overruled:
See, also, Columbian Nat. Fire Ins. Co. v. Dixie Co-op. Mail Order House, Tex.Com. App., 276 S.W. 219.
Appellant asserts by its second proposition that appellees' petition was subject to a general demurrer "for failure to negative the four exceptions in the statutory definition of `injury sustained in the course of employment', of Article 8309, Paragraph 5, Subparagraph 4, Revised Statute of 1925"; appellant thus states the four exceptions:
"(1) by the act of God; (2) by the act of a third person intended to injure him because of reasons personal to him and not directed against him as an employee; or because of his employment; (3) was not received by him while in a state of intoxication; (4) nor by the employee's wilful intention and attempt to injure himself, or to unlawfully injure some other person."
We quote as follows from appellees' petition:
Appellees were entitled to all general intendments to be deduced from their petition; under this rule the petition, in the respects challenged, in the absence of special exceptions, was not subject to the general demurrer. The following authorities support appellees' petition: 45 Tex.Jur., page 803; Federal Underwriters Exchange v. Warren, Tex.Civ.App., 86 S.W.2d 824, writ dismissed; Southern Surety Company et al. v. Weaver et al., Tex.Com.App., 273 S.W. 838.
By assignments of error Nos. 5 and 6, appellant complains that certain hypothetical questions propounded by appellees to Dr. R. D. Cousins were without support in the evidence in the following respects:
The following summary of the evidence, taken from appellees' brief, sufficiently answers these assignments:
In Decatur Cotton Seed Oil Co. v. Belew, Tex.Civ.App., 178 S.W. 607, the court said (page 614):
"All that is required in such cases is that the evidence is substantially embodied in the hypothetical question."
See, also, Trinity & B. V. Railway Co. v. McCune, Tex.Civ.App....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Federal Underwriters Exchange v. Polson
...144 S.W.2d 626, 629, writ refused; Texas Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Staggs, 134 Tex. 318, 134 S.W. 2d 1026; Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n v. Wright, Tex.Civ.App., 118 S.W.2d 433. We think that neither the Hall case, nor the Burnett case are controlling here. They hold that proof of lowered resistan......
-
Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Frankum
...147 S.W.2d 834, loc. cit. 839, 840; Williamson v. Texas Indemnity Co., 127 Tex. 71, 90 S.W.2d 1088, loc. cit. 1090; Texas Employers' v. Wright, Tex.Civ.App., 118 S.W.2d 433, err. dism., loc. cit. 437, 439; Scott v. Gardner, Tex.Civ.App., 159 S.W.2d 121, loc. cit. 123, err. ref. W. M.; South......
-
Texas Emp. Ins. Ass'n v. Melton
...by our Supreme Court in Foreman v. Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n, 150 Tex. 468, 241 S.W.2d 977. See also Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n v. Wright, Tex.Civ.App., 118 S.W.2d 433 (writ dis.). Moreover, appellant, on cross examination, did not attempt to question the opinion of Dr. Schoolfield as to w......
-
Consolidated Underwriters v. Dunn
...Tex.Civ. App., 125 S.W.2d 431, 435; United States F. & G. Co. v. Baker, Tex.Civ.App., 65 S. W.2d 344, 347; Texas Emp. Ins. Ass'n v. Wright, Tex.Civ.App., 118 S.W.2d 433, 439; Booth v. Texas Emp. Ins. Ass'n, 132 Tex. 237, 123 S.W.2d 322; Ocean Acc. & Guarantee Corp. v. Pruitt, Tex.Com.App., ......