On October 26, 1951, we handed down an opinion reforming and affirming the judgment of the trial court. After further consideration of the case, we have concluded that we were in error in reforming said judgment. We hereby grant ap-pellee’s motion for rehearing and withdraw our original opinion and substitute the following as the opinion of the majority of the court.
This suit was brought by Will G. Knox, Receiver of Texas Fire and Casualty Underwriters, against O. S. Hurley. From a summary judgment in favor of the Receiver appellee, Hurley, appellant appeals.
The Texas Fire and Casualty Underwriters was a reciprocal insurance exchange created and operated under and by virtue of Chapter 20, Title 78, as amended, of the 1925 Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 5024 et seq.
Under a prior class suit, judgment was rendered in the 53rd District Court of Travis County, Texas, fixing an assessment equal to 100% of the booked and earned premiums on all policies held by the policy holders during the period from December 1', 1939 to October 25, 1941.
This suit was to collect from appellant the amount of the booked and earned premiums on certain described policies in said Company for the period from January 2, 1941 to October 24, 1941.
The motion for summary judgment filed by appellee was supported by:
(a) Certified copy of the 53rd District Court judgment.
(b) Deposition of Floyd Herring, auditor for the Board of Insurance Commissioners, showing $1630.61 premiums booked and earned for the period from January 2, 1941 to October 24, 1941.
(c) Notice to the Industrial Accident Board, signed by appellant Hurley, as required by Employers’ Liability Act, Chapter 103, General Laws, 1917, and amendments thereto, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 8306 et seq., notifying said Board that he had become a subscriber by insuring with the Texas Fire and Casualty Underwriters, giving policy number and showing effective date to be January 2, 1941 to January 2, 1942.
(d) Transmittal notice from Texas Fire and Casualty Underwriters to the Industrial Accident Board, giving above information.
(e) Certificate of Secretary of the Industrial Accident Board that the notice that employer had become a subscriber was received and filed in that office on January 7, 1941.
(f) Certified copy of policy issued to appellant Hurley.
(g) Letter from appellant Hurley to Casualty Commissioner advising the Commissioner that he had authorized Texas Fire and Casualty Underwriters to Write his workmen’s compensation insurance for the year beginning January 1, 1941.
(h) Notice from Texas Fire and Casualty Underwriters to the Industrial Accident *559Board cancelling said policy as of October 24, 1941.
Appellant’s original answer consisted of special exceptions, a general denial, and a denial that he owed the sum sued for. His response to appellee’s motion for judgment was (a) an unsworn pleading that he believed a mistake had occurred in issuance of the policy; (b) an affidavit by his attorney concerning a letter he had in his possession from H. D. Lemmon; and (c) an affidavit from H. D. Lemmon in which he stated that he, as agent for Texas Fire and Casualty Underwriters, felt that he would be able to sell the coverage to appellant, ordered out the policy which was later presented to appellant for his approval, and upon learning the type of company involved, appellant advised affiant he did not wish the coverage and the policy was later canceled.
The 53rd District Court judgment fixed the period of insolvency of the Texas Fire and Casualty Underwriters and the amount of the assessment. Howell v. Knox, Tex.Civ.App., 211 S.W.2d 324, refused n. r. e. That judgment is binding on all who were subscribers during the period involved. Southern Ornamental Iron Works v. Morrow, Tex.Civ.App., 101 S.W.2d 336, writ refused; Richardson v. Kelly, 144 Tex. 497, 191 S.W.2d 857.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in holding there was no genuine issue as to any material fact, and argues that the Lemmon affidavit raises an issue of fact to be determined by the trial court.
The weight of authority is to the effect that summary judgment will lie only if the state of facts at the hearing of the motion would, if presented in a jury trial, entitle movant, with all reasonable doubts resolved againt him, to a peremptory instruction. Fowler v. Texas Employers’ Insurance Association, Tex.Civ.App., 237 S.W.2d 373, writ refused; Ramsouer v. Midland Valley Ry. Co., 8 Cir., 135 F.2d 101; Sartor v. Arkansas National Gas Corp., 321 U.S. 620, 64 S.Ct. 724, 88 L.Ed. 967.
Where a summary judgment is sought, the court’s function is solely to determine whether there is an issue of fact to be tried. De La Garza v. Ryals, Tex.Civ.App., 239 S.W.2d 854; also Rule 166-A, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Applying the above test to the affidavit of Lemmon, does it present a disputed material fact?
The affidavit admits the issuance of the policy. Art. 8306, sec. 3c, R.C.S., provides that when an employer ceases to be a subscriber he shall give notice to the Industrial Accident Board. The insurance contract in dispute provides that either party may cancel upon giving ten days’ notice, and further that cancellation shall not be effective except in compliance with law requiring notice to the proper Board. The affidavit does not state that such notice was given.
The affidavit does not give the date on which affiant claims that appellant told him he did not wish the coverage. It does not state when the policy was canceled.
The only cancellation date a jury could find would be October 24, 1941. Under the evidence submitted, the jury could fix no date on which appellant told Lemmon he did not wish the coverage.
Appellant did not, (by the Lemmon affidavit, or otherwise, deny the issuance of the policy, the notices by appellant to the Industrial Accident Board and the Casualty Commissioner, nor that the date of cancellation was October 24, 1941. Admitting all the statements of Lemmon to be true, they do not deny the material facts submitted by appellee to the court in support of the motion for summary judgment.
The court did not err in rendering judgment for the appellee.
Appellant contends that the record does not show he ever paid any premium on the policy and therefore a material fact was before the court as to whether the policy ever became effective. There is nothing in the pleadings or evidence offered by either party concerning the original premium. The question of whether the original premium was paid is not before us.
Appellant contends the trial court erred in providing interest on said judgment from May 2, 1947. The trial court allowed *560interest from the date of the judgment in the 53rd District Court of Travis County, Texas. While this judgment did not fix a money judgment against appellant, it definitely fixed the yard stick by which the amount of that liability could be determined. That judgment became final. Howell v. Knox, supra. It provides in part: “ * * * the liability which this judgment establishes against each subscriber of Texas Fire & Casualty Underwriters whether named herein expressly or as a class represented by those named herein, shall draw interest from the date of the entry of this judgment until paid at the rate of 6% per an-num,” and, “ * * * that each and every subscriber and each insured stands in the same relation to Texas Fire & Casualty Underwriters as those who are named as defendants herein.”
While the point at issue does nof seem to have been .expressly raised in the appellate courts, in similar reported cases interest is allowed from the date of the entry of the class suit judgment. Ama-Gray Oil Corp. v. Marshall, Tex.Civ.App., 192 S.W.2d 324; Southern Ornamental Iron Works v. Morrow, writ refused; Tex.Civ.App., 101 S.W.2d 336; Ama-Gray Oil Corp. v. Marshall, Tex.Civ.App., 212 S.W.2d 960.
“Interest is payable when the debt upon which it accrued becomes due.” 25 Tex. Jur. p. 9. This debt became due on the rendition of the class suit judgment. The amount of liability on the part of each subscriber could be calculated according to the provision of such class suit decree. The appellant’s point of error is overruled.
The judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed.