Title: MINER v. FOWLER
Citation: 180 Okla. 45, 1937 OK 282, 67 P.2d 799
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: April 27, 1937

MINER v. FOWLER Annotate this Case MINER v. FOWLER 1937 OK 282 67 P.2d 799 180 Okla. 45 Case Number: 26864 Decided: 04/27/1937 Supreme Court of Oklahoma MINER v. FOWLER Syllabus ¶0 ACTION - Right to Maintain Joint Action Against Motor Carrier and His Liability Insurance Bondsman. A joint action may be maintained against a motor carrier and his liability insurance bondsman, under the provisions of section 3708, O. S. 1931, as amended by section 4, chapter 156, S. L. 1933. Appeal from District Court, Canadian County; Lucius Babcock, Judge. Action by Pearl Fowler against J.A. Miner and Commercial Standard Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants jointly appeal. Affirmed. Hudson & Hudson, for plaintiffs in error. Rinehart & Welden, for defendant in error. HURST, J. ¶1 Pearl Fowler sued J.A. Miner to recover damages for injuries received in an automobile accident resulting from the alleged negligence of the driver of a motor truck owned by Miner. The truck was being operated under a permit issued by the Corporation Commission and carried liability insurance as a prerequisite to the issuance of the permit. The insurance carrier, Commercial Standard Insurance Company, was joined as a party defendant on the ground that it was jointly and severally liable with the defendant Miner for the injuries sustained. The defendant Miner filed a motion to strike all the allegations relative to his codefendant insurance company on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action, misjoinder of parties defendant, and that the action against the insurance company was prematurely brought, which motion was overruled. The defendant insurance company filed a demurrer on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action and misjoinder of parties defendant, and for the further reason that the action was prematurely brought against it. This demurrer was overruled and exceptions properly saved to both of these orders. ¶2 The case was tried to a jury, with a resulting verdict in favor of plaintiff against both defendants, and judgment rendered thereon. A joint motion for new trial was filed and overruled, and a joint petition in error has been filed in this court by both defendants. ¶3 Plaintiffs in error state that there is but one question for determination: "That the court erred in permitting the defendant Commercial Insurance Company to be made, and to remain, a party defendant in the trial of said action in the lower court, over the objection of both defendants." ¶4 The case of Enders v. Longmire, Adm'r, 179 Okla. 633 , 67 P.2d 12 , is decisive of the issue presented herein and holds adversely to the contention of plaintiffs in error. The judgment is affirmed.