Steenhuis v. Holland

Decision Date22 December 1927
Docket Number3 Div. 825
Citation115 So. 2,217 Ala. 105
PartiesSTEENHUIS v. HOLLAND.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Walter B. Jones Judge.

Action under the Homicide Act by Lumie H. Holland, as administratrix of the estate of Rufus H. Holland, deceased, against J.L Steenhuis. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Weil Stakely & Cater, of Montgomery, for appellant.

B. de G. Waddell, of Seale, and Hill, Hill, Whiting, Thomas & Rives, of Montgomery for appellee.

BOULDIN J.

The suit is by a personal representative under the Homicide Act (Code, § 5696).

The cause was tried upon an agreed statement of facts. Plaintiff's intestate came to his death by collision of an automobile in which he was riding with a street car of the Alabama Power Company, left standing at night unlighted on Bell street in the city of Montgomery. Defendant was the owner and driver of the car in which plaintiff's intestate was a guest. For the purpose of the suit, it was admitted that the collision was proximately caused by the negligence of defendant in operating the automobile and the negligence of the Alabama Power Company in so leaving the street car in the street.

Plaintiff and the Alabama Power Company, prior to the bringing of this suit, had reached a settlement, and upon payment of the sum agreed plaintiff executed a release in writing, which appears in full in the report of the case. Defendant relies upon this release as a full defense to this action, and it was agreed that if defendant was not entitled to an affirmative instruction to that effect, judgment for an agreed amount should be entered for plaintiff. Subject to legal objection, it was further agreed that defendant was not a party to the agreement with the Alabama Power Company, and paid no part of the consideration for the release. Judgment went for plaintiff.

The parties have thus reduced the labors of the court to the controlling question whether the release operated as a complete bar to this action or merely in reduction of liability. This question is presented in two aspects: (1) On the face of the release; and (2) on the release aided by the parol evidence, if such evidence is admissible.

The release in terms runs only in favor of the Alabama Power Company, its servants, etc. No joint tort-feasor is named or made a beneficiary by any reference or implication in the language employed. It nowhere says the sum paid is in "full satisfaction" of plaintiff's demand. Its language is, "release, discharge and acquit" the named parties from "all liability." Its declared purpose is to compromise a disputed claim, and to release the named parties.

Injury arising from the concurring negligence of joint tort-feasors, whether acting together or independently, may be redressed by joint or several action. Separate suits may be prosecuted to judgment. But recovery against one followed by satisfaction is a defense to the other except as to costs--this upon the ground that the right of action is one and indivisible. Satisfaction extinguishes the demand. Vandiver v. Pollak, 107 Ala. 547, 19 So. 180, 54 Am.St.Rep. 118; McCoy v. L. & N.R.R. Co., 146 Ala. 333, 40 So. 106; Hall v. Seaboard Air Line, 211 Ala. 602, 100 So. 890. Likewise, full satisfaction by one without suit inures to the benefit of all, or, rather, cuts off the right of action by extinguishment. Thompson v. N.C. & St. L. Ry., 160 Ala. 590, 49 So. 340; Wright v. McCord, 205 Ala. 122, 88 So. 150.

On the other hand, it is the right of the injured party to accept satisfaction in part from one tort-feasor, release him, and proceed against the other. Such release operates in favor of such other only as satisfaction pro tanto. Home Telephone Co. v. Fields, 150 Ala. 306, 43 So. 711; Dwight Mfg. Co. v. Word, 200 Ala. 221, 75 So. 979; W.U. Telegraph Co. v. Jones, 190 Ala. 70, 66 So. 691; Smith v. Gayle, 58 Ala. 600.

These rules are clear enough and the reasons not far to seek.

More difficulty arises when we come to consider whether a given release evidences a full and complete satisfaction of plaintiff's demand, and therefore available to all joint tort-feasors, or whether it releases only the party named, leaving the cause of action unsatisfied as against others, except as payment pro tanto reduces the existing demand.

By statute all releases must have effect according to the intent of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
48 cases
  • Breen v. Peck, A--5
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • December 1, 1958
    ...Bros. Pictures, 102 F.Supp. 263 (D.C.S.D.Cal.1952); Black v. Martin, 88 Mont. 256, 292 P. 577 (Sup.Ct.1930). In Steenhuis v. Holland, 217 Ala. 105, 115 So. 2 (Sup.Ct.1927), the plaintiff's intestate was killed in a collision between the defendant's automobile in which he was riding and a st......
  • Tatum v. Schering Corp.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 18, 1988
    ...... Steenhuis v. Holland, 217 Ala. 105, 115 So. 2. [Emphasis in original opinion.] .         " * * * .         "There is nothing in this statute ......
  • Price v. Baker, 18348
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Colorado
    • December 7, 1959
    ...liability for malfeasance; held it could not be done; court also pointed out that they were not joint tortfeasors); Steenhuis v. Holland, 1929, 217 Ala. 105, 115 So.2d 2 (action under Homicide Act (Code Sec. 5696) to construe a full release which court held was not a bar to a suit by person......
  • Daily v. Somberg
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • December 1, 1958
    ...forth that the sum paid to the plaintiff was in settlement and compromise and without admission of liability. See Steenhuis v. Holland, 217 Ala. 105, 115 So. 2, 4 (Sup.Ct.1927): 'When the release shows it was in compromise of the liability of the party to whom given, with no reference to a ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Settling the Claims of a Minor
    • United States
    • Alabama State Bar Alabama Lawyer No. 72-4, July 2011
    • Invalid date
    ...execute a release in favor of the defendant. See Bell v. Riley Bus Lines, 257 Ala. 120, 57 So. 2d 612, 615 (1952); Steenhuis v. Holland, 217 Ala. 105, 115 So. 2, 3-4 (1927); Logan v. Central Iron & Coal Co., 139 Ala. 548, 36 So. 729, 732 (1904). As a result, the minor's lack of capacity to ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT