The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-02-05
an ana opinion delivered by the supreme court


an opinion delivered by the supreme court
today: s'N''
CENTRAL INSURANCE.
SoMfANi vs.. BASS BROS, certified
question In case from Taylor COMFY.
second district--Answefed in favor of inc
insurance company.
rms is suit upon policy OF fire in
surance issued by defendant below upon a
STOCK OF merchandise. the property of Bass
BROS The amount of the loss was ascer-
tanned by appraisement before suit. in ac-
cordance win The terms OF the policy The
Insurance company refused to/pay The
amount OF the loss as thus ascer,ained. or
any part OF 1t, on the ground that another
cohdi'ion oil the contract had been broken
by the insured.
Question: Ibid the denial OF liability Oh
the part OF appellant after the amount had
been ascertained by apprasemont. as pro-
Vlded In the policy, have the effect of wgk
ing It's right to insist upon the appraise-
ment as conclusive of the amount of the
loss, such appraisement being otherwise
valid II not thus waived?"
a stipulation to appraise the amount of
the loss under an insurance policy is valid
In this jurisdiction. and to amount TO A
waiver OF this stipulation. the acts o; the
insurer must be such as are reasonably cal
oLiat.u 10 MAKE tue assured believe that a
compliance with the terms of the stipula-
ton on his part is not desired and would be
OF no c.icct.
The policy in suit docs not expressly
provide that, in the event an apprais.mont
is demanded. it shall be equivalent TO an
admission of liability; or that II the liabil-
Ivy be contested. the eppralsemcnt shall 40
Tor naught, On the contrary, we think II
is to be inferred from the provisions of the
policy that the parties contemplated that
there might be an appraisement binding
upon the parties In the event OF any re-
covery. and at the same time u denial of all
liability on the ground of a breach of one
or more Of the conditions of the contract
This being the effect of the provisions In
the contract, and the appraisement not
having in any manner embarrassed the IN
sured In prosecuting this suit. we think
that there was no waiver OF the condition
MS to appraisvment The amount of the
loss being determined. there was one less
issue to be tried. and to that extent the
prosecution of the suit was less burden
some upon the plaintiffs by reason of the
appraisement.
The question is answered in the mega
tive.
Opinion by Gaines. c. y
First District.
Galveston, Texas. February 4. 49, In the
court of civil appeals today it was ordered
that the following named cases be trans
ferred to San Antonio William Dunovant
VS.. w. S. Taylor, from Harris Nelson SIN
cere vs.. Union Compress and Warehouse
company. from Harris; ). T. Fontalne VS..
n. Bohn from Galveston; Sabine Tram
company VS.. I. Bancroft q Sons. from
Orange; II. +. Dunson ct al VS., j, NJ, Sprad
/ Icy ct al. from Nacogdoches; Merchants In
surance COMPANY VS.. #. Riechman, from
Harris; san Antonio and Arkansas Pass
/ hallway company VS., ". W. hlass et d.
from Nacogdochts l.. Noss, ST.. VS.. X.
holman, lrom washington; lyier South
eastern Railway company vs.. Burren
/ Wheeler. iron smith; western Union Ieie-
| graph company vs.. j. "A. EdMundsou, nom
| Washington, International and Great
! Northern hailrodd company VS.. }. Nj. Nc
| lNor X Bro, from Harris, International
and Great Northern Railroad company vs.
/ c. e Newman. from Harris; George +. Nc
Cular vs.. W. D. Murchlson ct al, from
houston, l.. a. Ellis vs. u. II. Cunning
nam. from Fort Bend; Reuben Shaver VS.
Charles Tinsley. rom Harris, Il. M. Clop'
per VS. j. C. Hutchinson ct al, from Harris
| Glen Nj. Harris VS.. j. r. j. Wilson ct al
/ from Harris, James Robinson VS.. Texas
/ Pine Land association, from Hardin; james
| Robinson VS. Texas Pine Land association
/ j
| Tinsley ct al from Fort Bend; A, A. Moore
et al VS. Drank Dunn, troia Harris; JohT
| l.ovejuy VS.. Kaufman Il Runge from Gal
weston; Henry Williams ct al VS.. j, X. fat
! terson, from smith international and Grea
/ Northern Railroad company VS.. j, {. star
! ling, from Houston; j. b. Hart q Co w
/ y. A. Wynne. from Walker, CUR, COLORADO
and Santa Fe Railway company vs.. u. Z
| smith ct al, from Liberty; frank Gary VS.
! Wells. Fargo & Co S express. from calves
I ton; NJ. L. Head VS. l.. NJ. Bracht ct al
4 from Aransas Crcnshaw Miller VS., Chafl,'
I II. Lowell from Victoria, Milmo Natona
bank. vs. r. a. Rich ct al from Wharton
+. Sarrazin ct al VS.. August HOFFMAN
from Fayette; John Mealy, Sr', ct al VS.
/ Amelia Lipp ct al, from galveston hous
ton and Texas Central Railway company vs.
| / l.. Abrahams from Harris, San An
tonic and Arkansas Pass Railway compa
nv VS. Mamie Morgan, from Nueces
/ II w. Warren n Sons VS.. McCulcheon q
/ Co., from Fort Bend. Brown q Fleweilel
| ct al We ID. ID. Durham, from Gregg; Z. II
! Jones vs. Henry Laturnus, from Fayette
| New Birmingham Land and iron coihpah'
! ot al VS.. A. Is. Dlevins ct al. Cherokee
/ Texas CITY Improvement company vs. j. NJ
I Griswcld ct al from Galveston; Texas AM
! New Orleans Railroad company VS.. IL, a
| Carr. from orange johanna Chaill vs.
| Texas Mexican Railway company, iron
| Nueces. Western Union Telegraph compah:
VS.. John G. Bennett, from Grimes JOSEPH
| cuba VS.. Island City Savings bank ct al
| from Victoria; A. Frenkel ct al VS. Coudou
guardian. from Galveston. Beaumont Lum
her ccmpany vs. B. l., Moore. from Jei
! ferson. Houston East and West Texas RAN
way company ct al VS.. Lutte GrandDcrry
from Angelina H. Mildly ct al VS.. ID. II
Reagan from Jackson; a. Boehn eli al VS.
Henry Beuter, from Harris; &. #. Taylo
Ilrax