stating that it is “well-established law that instruments pertaining to the same transaction may be read together to ascertain the parties’ intent”
How later courts described this case
- stating that it is “well-established law that instruments pertaining to the same transaction may be read together to ascertain the parties’ intent”
- holding that multiple instruments executed at different times may be read together as a single writing if they were part of the same transaction
- stating that “[a]ll of the instruments were a necessary part of the same transaction”
- concluding multiple documents pertaining to the same transaction constituted one contract
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON REHEARING
Mr. Justice Calvert
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In the last paragraph of our opinion on original submission we declared “invalid” all policies of insurance issued by Great Southern under its agreement with Trustee. The language there used is subject to the criticism now urged that to declare these policies “invalid” would be to destroy the rights of those protected by the policies contrary to the rule established by the decision of this court in the case of American National Insurance Company v. Tabor, 111 Texas 155 , 230 S.W. 397 . We had no intention of abandoning the rule there announced. Accordingly, the last paragraph of the opinion is rewritten so as to read as follows:
The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is reversed and the judgment of the trial court is reformed so as to declare that all policies of insurance issued by Great Southern under its agreement with Trustee are issued in violation of Article 4764a.
The motions for rehearing have been carefully examined and except as above indicatetd they are overruled.
Opinion delivered June 13, 1951.