Court Opinion

ID: 9765304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:59:21.818618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:08.573232
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing
Defendant’s motion for rehearing has ■been considered and is overruled. We add these comments:
(1) Regarding Ground 4: The petition does not show what statute the defendant was incorporated under. One would infer from reading the petition that the defendant had authority to contract to pay the surgical benefits.
(2) Ground 5 assigns as fundamental error that the trial court did not have jurisdiction. The cause was tried in the County Court of Orange County. The petition alleged a cause of action against the defendant on two contracts of insurance obligating the defendant to pay hospital expenses and surgical expenses, and plaintiff prayed therein for recovery of the total amount of these claims, namely, $311.-25, the surgical expenses alleged being $165 and the hospital expenses, $146.25. The petition alleged that defendant made these contracts and that the several items of expense were incurred as a result of the operation on Mrs. Bass’ feet. On the trial, it developed that defendant had made the contract to pay the hospital expense but that another corporation had made the contract to pay the surgical costs, and the *511plaintiff abandoned the claim against defendant for surgical costs. No order of dismissal was requested or entered; plaintiff’s counsel declared that he did not insist on a previous request to add as a party-defendant the corporation which had made the contract to pay the surgical costs and stated that he would take judgment for the amount of the hospital expenses. This was $146.25.
The petition fixed jurisdiction in the trial court, the amount in controversy being within the jurisdiction of that court; and the plaintiff’s failure of proof (the situation amounts to that) concerning the claim against defendant for surgical costs would not oust jurisdiction. No fraud on the jurisdiction of the court is claimed. See: Nashville C. & S. T. L. Ry. Co. v. Grayson County National Bank, 100 Tex. 17, 93 S. W. 431; Isbell v. Kenyon-Warner Dredging Co., 113 Tex. 528, 261 S.W. 762, p. 763 (Syl. 5); City of Fort Worth v. Zane-Cetti, Tex.Com.App., 29 S.W.2d 958, p. 962 (Syl. 4) ; Thompson v. A. J. Tebbe & Sons Co., Tex.Civ.App., 241 S.W.2d 633, 11 Tex. Jur. 766 (Sec. 46).
The rule of decision cited by the defendant is not applicable because the petition does not show that defendant could not contract to pay surgical costs and thus does not show that a cause of action to recover this item had not been alleged.