From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Insurance Assn. v. Marsden

Court of Appeals of Texas
Mar 30, 1938
131 Tex. 256 (Tex. Civ. App. 1938)

Summary

In Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n v. Marsden, 131 Tex. 256, 114 S.W.2d 858, the defendant failed to file an answer of any kind.

Summary of this case from Gambill v. Snow

Opinion

Motion No. 13404.

Decided March 30, 1938.

Trial —Cross Action —Waiver.

In an action to set aside an award for compensation, the trial of the case in the district court, by all parties, on the theory that insurance company had filed a general denial to the cross action, was a waiver of any technical rule requiring it to answer the cross action.

Error to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Eleventh District, in an appeal from Stephens County.

An action to set aside an award of the Industrial Accident Board to D. E. Marsden by the Texas Employers' Insurance Association. Marsden filed a cross action setting up a claim for compensation on the basis of permanent disability, to which the insurance association filed no answer. Judgment in favor of the claimant was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals ( 111 S.W.2d 1138), and the insurance company has brought error to the Supreme Court. Upon first consideration the Court refused the application for writ of error and motion for rehearing has been filed.

Motion granted, former order set aside, and application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Lawther Cramer and Wm. M. Cramer, all of Dallas, for plaintiff in error.

Frank S. Roberts, of Breckenridge, for defendant in error.


This is a compensation case. Defendant in error, D. E. Marsden, was injured in the course of his employment. The Industrial Accident Board awarded him compensation on the basis of total permanent disability. Texas Employers' Insurance Association, the insurance carrier, appealed to the district court and prayed that the award be set aside. Defendant in error answered, and filed a cross action, in which he set up claim for compensation on the basis of total permanent disability. Plaintiff in error filed no answer to the cross action. The case was one of hernia arising in the course of employment, and the Association refused to furnish an operation. In the district court the case was tried and hotly contested on the question of total permanent disability, just as if a general denial had been entered by the Association. All issues which the Association would have been entitled to have submitted, if it had filed a general denial, were submitted and answered by the jury, including issues concerning partial disability. Judgment was rendered in the district court in favor of the claimant on the basis of total permanent disability. The facts, as well as the findings of the jury, fully authorized such judgment. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that by its failure to file a general denial to defendant in error's cross action, the plaintiff in error admitted all material allegations in such cross action; and refused to consider any of the assignments of plaintiff in error. 111 S.W.2d 1138.

Upon original consideration we refused writ of error. On motion for rehearing we have carefully reconsidered the question, and are of the opinion that the Court of Civil Appeals was in error in its holding. We think the record clearly discloses that the case was tried in the district court by all parties as if plaintiff in error had filed a general denial to the cross action. Regardless of whether or not it was, under strict technical rules, required to answer the cross action, we think that such answer was waived, and the parties proceeded upon the theory that there had been a general denial entered.

We have therefore given careful consideration to the application for writ of error, as well as plaintiffs in error's brief in the Court of Civil Appeals, and have reached the conclusion that there is no reversible error presented. If writ of error was granted on the question of the alleged error of the Court of Civil Appeals, the judgment would nevertheless be affirmed.

The motion for rehearing is granted, the order refusing writ of error is set aside, and the application is now dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion delivered March 30, 1938.


Summaries of

Insurance Assn. v. Marsden

Court of Appeals of Texas
Mar 30, 1938
131 Tex. 256 (Tex. Civ. App. 1938)

In Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n v. Marsden, 131 Tex. 256, 114 S.W.2d 858, the defendant failed to file an answer of any kind.

Summary of this case from Gambill v. Snow

In Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Marsden, 131 Tex. 256, 114 S.W.2d 858, our Supreme Court held that filing of an answer was waived, where no answer was filed and the case was tried by all parties as if the defendant has filed a general denial.

Summary of this case from Elliott v. Brooks
Case details for

Insurance Assn. v. Marsden

Case Details

Full title:TEXAS EMPLOYERS' INSURANCE ASSOCIATION v. D. E. MARSDEN

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas

Date published: Mar 30, 1938

Citations

131 Tex. 256 (Tex. Civ. App. 1938)
114 S.W.2d 858

Citing Cases

Wright v. General Insurance Co.

This holding is correct. To the cases there cited which support the holding — some involving the same issue…

Universal Credit Co. v. Vance

See, also, City of San Antonio v. Bodeman, Tex. Civ. App. 163 S.W. 1043. Illustrative of the extent to which…