Court Opinion

ID: 9761767
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:53:47.009916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:26.166535
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Criticism of our opinion is made by appellant because in quoting from Lowe and Archer, Texas Practice, we omitted the following: “Mandatory injunctions may not be used as a substitute for the writ of mandamus to compel action by duly constituted public officials, * * * ”
In stopping in mid-sentence, appellant omitted the remaining portion which reads: “although it may be used to bring about a recognition or restoration of the status quo which has been flaunted or disturbed by such officials.”
The action of the trial court was clearly within appropriate limits as delineated by the above text.
Appellant, not having done so previously, now questions the constitutionality of the trial de novo provisions of Sec. (f), Art. 1.04 of the Insurance Code. We overrule this contention and sustain the constitutionality of these provisions under the authority of Key Western Life Insurance Co. v. State Board of Insurance, 163 Tex. 11, 350 S.W.2d 839, and State Board of Insurance v. Professional and Businessmen’s Insurance Co., 359 S.W.2d 312, Austin Civ.App., writ ref., n. r. e.
Appellant also for the first time contends that Great Republic Life Insurance Company was a necessary and indispensable party to this suit.
The suit in the District Court was in the nature of an appeal from a ruling of the State Board of Insurance as authorized by Sec. 1.04(f) of the Insurance Code, which Article provides that such an appeal may be taken by filing a petition in the District Court of Travis County against the State Board of Insurance. Under this statute only the Board of Insurance need be sued. See 43 Tex.Jur.2d, Sec. 665, Oil and Gas, page 610, and cases there cited, where it is stated with reference to a similar statute providing for appeals from ruling of the Railroad Commission that, “ * * * the Commission is the only necessary party defendant.”
The temporary injunction issued in this case was purely incidental to the appeal taken from the action of the Board, and the rifles relating to such appeals have primary application.
The motion is overruled.