The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1903-02-25
IMPORTANT DECISION
CITY OF DALLAS HELD seseo,.,
FOR A SIDEWALK AccloeNr ''sl
lnstallnent Life NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS..
ure TO Pay May be sustal,oa !. - rh'
to that Particular ins,sIIm.o, =

Austin, Texas February za--Th.
ieourt yesterday handtA down an on,.,. Y'eHY
ease OF Addie Lentz vs. The City o. DALI. !.
all cities was decided 's'esunS II
Plaintiff, a child 10 wears Of a.. ~
hole in grating upon one OF the sSp0a MD
Dallas, and, for the injuries sustained s,".@ u
judgment against the city, which. on
reversed by the court Of civil abns,,, ~ wa
n1er1t was rendered by that court h f,.s .u luds1
city This action on the part Of n, v ~.
civil appeals was based on provi,;os SS W ~
charter of Dallas, which was construed !, -. " me
ing the city from the liability asserted s,s,Sp
Inc evidence showed that the owner a s',,u
ing winch aoutted upon the sidewalk had NY, L
an excavation under it and had lnss,.ss nsos
grating to cover the opening in The s.,s t'nl
made. At the time of the accident aosa-i,. uusi
the evidence adduced by plaintiff thar. ~. III
hole IN this grating into which the child go.
and which had existed so long that the e;, sa'
to have known of and remeded il tn ousn'|
gave to the city complete control over n, .,s.
and sidewalks.
The court discussed in extenso the ysror, =.
visions of the city charter of Dallas for MAI
streets and sidewalks, which the court eonclud.s
do not apply to the work Of merely making :.
pairs, using this language ut Il unr,.,ss..,,
~ oHPPCSN that lAO legislature pufpOsed that Il
city should resort TO the cumbrous method d.;..
for the construction and repair of sid,w,iL.
whenever 1t became necessary TO hll M
therein. For such conditions the polie. no..
was entirely adequate, and there was no p,irr,,.
10 exempt the city from liability for dam.,.J
resulting from the negligent failure 10 .y,yr,.
that power, when the exercise Of il. and No, ~.
proceedings provided in other sections, v.,.
called for
I'VE are therefore, of the opinion that n.
court of civil appeals erred in sustaining thi,
defense"
The supreme court in the case Of the New
York Life Insurance Company vs. Annie E. Eng.
lsh, from Dimmit county, decides some important
features Of the contract between insurance com.
panies and policy holders
! The New York Life Insurance company issued
policy of insurance upon the life OF William
| f English payable to Annie E. English. hi,
wife, for the sum of $4,000, TO be paid in ten
z5nual installments OF $500 each the FIRST in.
stallment to become due upon the delivery 10
the insurance company of proof Of death Of said
| English.
William E. English died October 70, 1900, md
proof OF his death was presented to the nsui.
ance company December 20, when demand wa,
made for the payment OF the first instailment
which being refused by the company, this sci,
was brought in the district court Of Dmml
county. 1t was alleged in this trial that, BY
reason OF the insurance eompany's refusal Ia
pay this first installment, the entire amount
of $4,000 became due. The presiding judge H.
struoted TIE jury to find for the plaintiff
verdict for the entire amount Of the ten install
ments, $4,000.
The insurance company carried the case to III
court of civil appeals. where the judgment q
the district court was reversed and judgntn
rendered in favor Of Annie c, English against th
insurance company for $4,000, with execution 10
the first installment OF $500, and at the end 0
each year from December 30, 1901, execution
should issue in favor Of plaintiff for $500.
A writ of error was granted in favor Of sat
party. The insurance company objected TO u
judgment of the court of civil appeals because
provided for the collection OF the instalmenl
which were not due at the time the suit VS.
instituted. and the supreme court expresses 70
opinion that this objection was well taken- y
the judgment of the court Of civil appeas
reversed for this reason.
The supreme court holds that contraet u
the payment of money will not support an stiio
until IL becomes due and payable according
the terms. There are some exceptions 70 70
rule, 90 il is stated in this opinion, but %
case does not come within any OF these exec
tions.
The court further holds that the failure
pay any one of the installments prowdea 'Oi
the policy sued upon gave the plaintiff inc ~
Of action for that installment only.
The case Is reversed and remanded