Court Opinion

ID: 9833783
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:01:26.404422+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:06.689492
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing by Defendant in Error.
[4] In our original opinion herein we reversed the judgment of the court beldw and remanded the cause for a new trial because the evidence failed to show that the South*684western Surety Insurance Company, which made the contract upon which this suit is based and which is a foreign corporation, had a permit to do business in this state as required by article 1318, Vernon’s Sayles’ Civil Statutes. In reaching this conclusion we overlooked article 1319 of said Statutes, which was not called to our attention by either the plaintiff or defendant in error. This latter article expressly exempts from the operation of article 1318:
“Such corporations as are required by law to procure certificates of authority to do business from the commissioner of insurance and banking.”
The Southwestern Surety Insurance Company being a corporation which was required by law to procure a certificate of authority to do business from the commissioner of insurance and banking, such corporation was not subject to the provisions of article 1318, and we erred in reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the evidence failed to show a compliance with said article by such corporation.
We cannot agree with the contention of plaintiff in error that, because the Southwestern Surety Insurance Company was a foreign corporation and it is not shown to have had a certificate of authority to do business in this state at the time the contract was made, defendant in error, who had such permit and who took over and carried out the obligations of said contract, cannot maintain this suit, notwithstanding the provisions of article 1319, exempting defendant in error from the inhibition of article 1318.
Plaintiff in error received the benefit of the contract made by him with the Southwestern Surety Insurance Company, which contract was assigned by that company to defendant in error, and the obligations of the Southwestern Surety Insurance Company having been fully performed by defendant in error, plaintiff in error cannot avoid his obligation to perform his part of said contract on the ground that the Southwestern Surety Insurance Company is not shown to have had a certificate of authority from the commissioner of insurance and banking to do business in this state at the time said contract was entered into.
The motion for rehearing is granted, our former judgment herein set aside, and the judgment of the court below affirmed.