Court Opinion

ID: 9667691
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:52:34.584915+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:39.867672
License: Public Domain

Mr. Chief Justice
Hickman delivered the opinion of the Court.
*580In their motion for rehearing petitioners, Southwestern Title and Guaranty Company and Austin Title Company, Inc., call upon us to pass upon the question of the applicability of the substantial evidence rule upon a retrial of the case. The Article of the Texas Insurance Code (Art. 9.22) empowering the Board to approve the questioned contract is copied in our original opinion. By reference thereto it will be seen that it authorizes a title company to appoint as a representative in any county “any person, firm or corporation owning and operating an abstract plant in such county and making such arrangements for division of premiums as may be approved by the Board.”
It cannot be determined from the record with certainty what is the exact question which the court will be called upon to decide. If the evidence should disclose that there is unquestionably an abstract plant in operation in Travis County and the question is whether or not Austin Title Company, Inc., and not some other party or company, is its owner, the substantial evidence rule will have no application. This for the'reason that the Board as an administrative agency is not clothed with the power to adjudicate the question of title to property. Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Railroad Commission, 141 Texas 96, 170 S.W. 2d 189; Trapp v. Shell Oil Co., 145 Texas 323, 198 S.W. 2d 424.
If, however, as appears more likely, the question will not be one of title but rather whether the equipment owned by Austin Title Company, Inc., is an abstract plant and the nature of the business conducted is such as to warrant the conclusion that it is an abstract business, the substantial evidence rule would be applicable. The statute does not define an abstract plant. Whether or not a given plant is an abstract plant and operated as such within the meaning of the statute above referred to is a question which the Board is authorized to decide, and a judicial review of its decision should be based on the substantial evidence rule. The matter has been committed to the discretion of the Board, and if its conclusion is reasonably supported by substantial evidence, the court should not substitute its conclusion for that of the Board. That is familiar law supported by many authorities, a number of which are collated in 1 Texas Jurisprudence, Ten Year Supplement, Administrative Law and Procedure, § 43, p. 124, footnote 16.
Motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion delivered October 6, 1954.
Second rehearing overruled November 24, 1954.