# Arrow Coach Lines v. Pennsylvania Casualty Co.

> Court of Appeals of Texas · October 25, 1950 · 234 S.W.2d 883

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9643245

## Case

- **Full name:** ARROW COACH LINES Et Al. v. PENNSYLVANIA CASUALTY CO. Et Al.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** October 25, 1950
- **Citations:** 234 S.W.2d 883; 1950 Tex. App. LEXIS 1739
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Hughes
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9643245

## Opinion text

On Appellants’ Motion for Rehearing.
Appellants’ motion for rehearing contains the following statement:
“The Court is in error .in holding that none of the parties are affected by the judgment except Pennsylvania Casualty Company and Highway Insurance Underwriters.
“An examination of the judgment of the trial court will show that judgment was rendered in favor of Pennsylvania Casualty Company not only against Highway Insurance Underwriters but also against Frank E. Cofer, Alice Roberson Cofer, R. M. Belcher, Robert M. Belcher, M. O. Killion, Jr., and Mrs. M. O. Killion, Jr., individually and as partners constituting Arrow Coach Lines. Reference to appellants’ brief will show the complaint made by these individuals of the judgment of the trial court.”
This description of the judgment is correct.
It is, therefore, necessary to explain the second paragraph of our opinion where we say:
“Other parties are present but since they are in no way affected by the judgment and make no complaint they will not be further noticed.”
• All of the parties against whom a judgment was rendered, named above, did appeal. Only a single brief on behalf of all appellants was ifiled. In this brief there are found the following statements:
“We say that this is a very simple case. It is purely a controversy between Pennsylvania Casualty Company on the one hand and Highway Insurance Underwriters on the other. One or the other of these insurance companies are bound or liable for all the payments made in connection with the claims and suits and none of the partners of either Creamer Coaches or Arrow Coach Lines have any actual part in this controversy.
% * * ⅜ * *
“There is no question of the rights of the partners' in Arrow Coaches or Creamer Coaches involved here. Insurance was taken out and the insurance companies must respond for their respective obligations.”
We assumed that these statements were made by appellants in good faith and thus we were prompted to write the paragraph about which appellants now complain.
*889 With this explanation and after a careful examination of all assignments in the motion for rehearing, we are of the opinion that it should he overruled. It is so ordered.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9643245. Public record. Not legal advice.