Texas Attorney General Opinion: O-1788 Page: 4 of 5
This text is part of the collection entitled: Texas Attorney General Opinions and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Hon. Walter C. Woodward
Hon. R. G. Waters, page 4 (0-1788)
additional burdens on the licensee, or to alter the li-
cense, or to revoke and annul it. And this is the general
rule....regardless of whether the term for which the li-
cense was given has expired...." To the same effect, see
also Daniel v. Tyrrell & Garth Investment Company, 127 Tex.
213, 93 SW 2nd 372, Jefferson County Title Guaranty Co. v.
Tarver, 119 Tex. 410 29 SW 2nd 316, Shaw v. Lone Star Bldg.
& Loan Association 123 Tex. 373 71 SW 2nd 863, Lloyds of
Texas v. Bobbitt (6C.A.) 40 SW nd 897.
The Supreme Court of Texas speaking in the case of
Daniel v. Tyrrell & Garth Investment Company, supra, which in-
volved the construction of Article 1302a (supra) said:
"Every corporate charter issued by this State is issued
with the power reserved in the state to 'alter, reform or
amend ' it. Citing Article 1318, supra, and commenting that
the power reserved in the state to 'alter, reform or amend'
charters cannot be contracted away by the corporation."
Continuing with its decision, the court said:
"It is contended by (the plaintiff) that the rules and
regulations promulgated by the board, by authority of a law
which became effective after the contract between it and the
title company was entered into, cannot be applied so as to
affect such previous contract. We overrule this contention.
The police power of the state to regulate the business of
title insurance, as to forms of contracts and rates, cannot
be contracted away by the title company." Citing Shaw v.
Lone Star Bldg. & Loan Association, 123 Tex. 373, 71 SW 2nd
863. (Parenthetical insertion ours),
An extension of an interest bearing agreement is a valid
contract. See 1 Williston on Contracts, Section 122 (Revised Edi-
tion). Also, the case of Benson v. Phipps, 87 Texas 578, by
Gaines, C. J.
Here, you are respectfully advised that under the au-
thorities cited above, it is our opinion, that all private corpor-
ations, chartered by this State, assuming to write title insurance
must comply with the provisions of Article 1302a, V.A.C.S. In
entering into all title insurance contracts, a corporation must
take cognizance of, and act according to, all those rules and
regulations which are, and may be, prescribed by the Board of In-
surance Commissioners pursuant to that authority vested in them
by the terms of the Act. Such compliance is in the nature of a
condition precedent to the validity of any title insurance agree-
ment which said corporation might enter into. This is applicable
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: O-1788, text, 1940; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth258982/m1/4/: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.