Legal Opinion

Tyler Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Ellington

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided January 13, 1930No. 3779PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WILLSON, O. J.

(after stating the case as above). The provision in the policy that it should not “become effective or binding on either party” thereto until the premium thereon had been paid was a valid one (Ginners’ Mut. Underwriters’ Ass’n v. Fisher [Tex. Com. App.] 238 S. W. 207, 208), and, if it ought to have been given effect, the judgment should have been in appellant’s favor, instead of against it, for it conclusively appeared that the premium had not been paid at the time the fire occurred.

The trial court was of opinion, it seems, that the provision was never operative because of…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Southern Surety Co. v. BentonTexas Commission of Appeals · 1926
  2. Thompson v. WaitsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1913
  3. Ginners' Mut. Underwriters Ass'n v. FisherTexas Commission of Appeals · 1922
  4. Clark Johnson v. HamiltonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1929
  5. National Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. SikesCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1928

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Rio Grande Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. FaulknerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1951
  2. Ginners' Mut. Underwriters Ass'n v. PickardCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1930

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API