Court Opinion

ID: 9830246
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:01:16.30063+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:16.736267
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
On a former day of this term we reversed and rendered the judgment in this case, but after reconsidering the contract of the parties we have concluded we erred in so doing, and have concluded the judgment should be affirmed, believing that the evidence shows that plaintiff did not comply with the provision of the contract relating to the giving of notice to the Fidelity & Deposit Company of the happening of the accident, as contracted by the said company, which is supported by the great weight of authority, among which are the cases of Travelers’ Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Scott, 218 S. W. 53, and Walsh v. Church, 173 S. W. 241. The principle announced in these two cases is exactly in point with the facts in this case, and decisive of this case. The decision in Maryland Casualty Co. v. Robertson, 194 S. W. 1140, on which our opinion was founded, we do not now believe was in point, as it was founded upon a different state of facts from those in this case.
The motion for rehearing is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.