Aetna Insurance v. Hawkins
Texas Supreme Court
Original' application to the Supreme Court by the Aetna Insurance Company, for writ of mandamus against Wm. E. Hawkins, Commissioner of Insurance for the State, to require the issuance of a certificate of its right to do business in the State.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Williams
The relator asks for a mandamus to require respondent to issue to it a certificate of authority to do a fire insurance business. The respondent has refused to issue the certificate for the reason that relator has not furnished the bonds, which, according to respondent’s contention, .are required by the Act of March 20, 1909. (Laws 31st Leg., 182.)
The controversy is as to the true construction of the provisions of that Act concerning the bonds exacted of fire insurance companies. The first point of difference is as to the number of bonds required, respondent demanding two upon the contention…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Cunningham v. Republic InsuranceTexas Supreme Court · 1936
- American Surety Co. of New York v. MartinezCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1934
- Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. LangbehnCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1912
- Republic Ins. Co. v. CunninghamCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1933
- Ross v. Southern Surety Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1914
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.