Worth Ins. Co. v. Patching
| Decision Date | 12 December 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 5--4003,5--4003 |
| Citation | 410 S.W.2d 125,241 Ark. 620 |
| Parties | WORTH INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Mrs. Tommy PATCHING and Helena National Bank, Appellees. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
N. M. Norton, Forrest City, for appellant.
David Solomon, Helena, for appellees.
On September 2, 1964 appellant wrote and delivered its policy of insurance, including coverage of claims for collision damages, upon an automobile owned by appellee Mrs. Tommy Patching, and financed by appellee Helena State National Bank. On November 12, 1964 appellant elected to cancel the policy. Appellant allowed a credit for the unearned premium in its settlement of accounts for November with its general agent, Kidder Insurance Company, Inc. of Fort Smith. Instead of remitting the premium refund to appellees, Kidder Insurance Company, Inc. remitted to an insurance agent, John Coates, who did not pay over the cancellation premium refund to appellees until August, 1965. In the meantime, on June 19, 1965, the insured car was involved in a collision, being damaged in the amount of $1,325.00, for which claim was asserted and suit subsequently filed.
Appellant answered claiming delivery of the policy to John Coates in the capacity as agent for appellees; that the policy had been cancelled and was not in effect, and that notice of loss was not given pursuant to the terms of the policy.
Appellant moved for leave to file a cross-complaint against its general agent, Kidder Insurance Company, Inc. praying judgment against the cross-defendant for any amount for which appellant be found liable to appellees. Appellees resisted the motion to bring in additional parties. We quote from appellees' responsive pleading:
'WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the motion for permission to file a cross complaint in this cause be denied, and for such further relief as they might be entitled in the premises.'
Following hearing the Court denied appellant's motion for leave to file the cross-complaint. It is from this action that the appeal has been prosecuted.
Neither party has raised the question as to whether the order of the trial court is appealable. This question is jurisdictional and we reach it on our own motion in disposing of this case.
Under the statute we are limited to reviewing final judgment and decrees. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 27--2101 (Repl.1962).
In Piercy v. Baldwin, 205 Ark. 413, 168 S.W.2d 1110 (1943), we said:
'* * * The order from which this appeal comes is in no sense a final order, from which an appeal may be prosecuted. In effect, the order continues...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Horton v. City of Paragould
...pleading relating to the employment of special counsel. 1 This part of the order may not be appealable. Worth Insurance Company v. Patching, 241 Ark. 620, 410 S.W.2d 125. ...
-
Sturgeon v. American Family Life Assur. Co. of Columbus, Ga.
...and thus concluding his rights on that matter. Each of the cases cited by the appellee is distinguishable. In Worth Insurance Co. v. Patching, 241 Ark. 620, 410 S.W.2d 125 (1966), the court refused to allow a defendant to file a third party claim. That decision did not conclude any rights a......
-
H. E. McConnell and Son v. Sadle
...v. Patching, termination of this one phase of the litigation are raised by the parties, as pointed out in Worth Insurance Company v. Patching, 241 Ark. 620, 410 S.W.2d 125, the want of a final order is a matter that we raise ourselves, and under Ark.Stat.Ann. § 27--2101 (Repl.1962), we are ......
-
Arkansas Sav. & Loan Ass'n Bd. v. Corning Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 5--5850
...question which we ourselves raise. H. E. McConnell and Son v. Sadle, 248 Ark. 1182, 455 S.W.2d 880; Worth Insurance Co. v. Patching, 241 Ark. 620, 410 S.W.2d 125. Although appellee has attempted to waive the question of finality of the order, this court does not have jurisdiction and it can......