Court Opinion

ID: 9832800
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:12:50.163434+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:53.013080
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In our original opinion we erroneously stated that the case of Kuntz v. Spence had not been cited by defendant in error. The case was, in fact, plainly cited, but overlooked.
The recent case of American Indemnity Co. v. Martin et al. (Tex. Civ. App.) 54 S.W.(2d) 542, appearing in print subsequent to the date of our opinion is called to our attention by defendants in error in the motion for rehearing. It is apparently in conflict with our holding herein. We do not agree with the reasoning of the eminent judge who wrote that opinion. As we view it, the sole question presented is one of the construction of a contract between two parties. The avoidance of a multiplicity of. suits can not, it seems to us, be made to affect this question. Our holding was bottomed upon the proposition that the defendant in error, who was-not a party to the contract in question and at most only a contingent beneficiary under it, had no right to maintain a cause of action thereon, he being an entire stranger to it We are unable to see the view-point that the avoidance of a multiplicity of suits has anything to do with the determination of this question.
Motions for rehearing and to certify are both overruled.