Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Alexander, 6 Div. 628.

Decision Date24 April 1941
Docket Number6 Div. 628.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court
PartiesSLOSS-SHEFFIELD STEEL & IRON CO. v. ALEXANDER et al.

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1941.

Certiorari to Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J.F. Thompson, Judge.

Proceeding under Workmen's Compensation Act, Code 1923, § 7534 et seq., Code 1940, Tit. 26, § 253 et seq., by Sarah Alexander for herself and another, against the Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Company, employer, to recover compensation on account of the death of Robert Alexander, an employee resulting from an accident arising out of employment, wherein claims were interposed by Laura Alexander and others. To review a judgment awarding compensation to the named claimant and another, the employer brings certiorari.

Modified and affirmed.

Kingman C. Shelburne and Bradley, Baldwin, All & White, all of Birmingham, for appellant.

Frank M. James, L.E. Rogers, and George Rogers, all of Birmingham for appellee Laura Alexander.

LIVINGSTON Justice.

This suit was commenced by Sarah Alexander, who sues for herself and for her minor child Eunice Alexander, against the Sloss-Sheffield Steel and Iron Company, a corporation, claiming compensation due under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Code 1923, § 7534 et seq., Code 1940, Tit. 26, § 253 et seq., for the death of Robert Alexander, who was alleged to be the step-son of Sarah Alexander and a half brother of Eunice Alexander.

In its answer, the Sloss-Sheffield Steel and Iron Company suggested to the court that the persons herein below named were claiming compensation of the defendant for and on account of the death of Robert Alexander, and requested that the court make and enter an order requiring them to appear and interplead their claims in the cause: namely, Evalina Kidd, who claimed to be the mother of the deceased employee; Howard Alexander claimed to be the dependent father of the deceased employee; Sadie Alexander, alias Sadie Brown, who claimed to be the dependent wife of Robert Alexander; Laura Alexander who claimed to be the dependent common law wife of Robert Alexander; and Helen Stephens who claimed to be a dependent sister of Robert Alexander. Upon being served with process, all of the suggested claimants, except Helen Stephens, intervened in the cause and presented their claims.

After hearing the evidence, the trial court made and entered a decree, in substance, as follows: Robert Alexander was the employee of the defendant, Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Company, at the time of his death, and that his death was the result of an accident arising out of and in the scope of his employment by the defendant, and that the defendant had due and legal notice of his death. That the employment of deceased, at the time of his death, was governed by the Workmen's Compensation Act of Alabama. That Eunice Alexander, a minor, is the half sister and a partial dependent of deceased, and, as such, is entitled to compensation covering a period of three hundred weeks.

Further, at the time of his death, Robert Alexander and Laura Alexander were common law husband and wife, and that Robert was supporting Laura as his wife at that time: that prior to the time Robert and Laura contracted a common law marriage, Laura had purportedly married one Nick Shields in Jefferson County, Alabama, but that prior to said purported marriage, Nick Shields had married one Emmie Bell Smith and that said marriage to Emmie Bell Smith had never been terminated by death or divorce, and, therefore, Nick Shields' marriage to Laura was void, and Laura was free to contract a common law marriage with Robert Alexander. That previous to the time Robert and Laura contracted a common law marriage, Robert had purportedly married Sadie Alexander, alias Sadie Brown, but that previous to said marriage Sadie had married one Henry McLain and that the marriage of Sadie to Henry McLain had never been terminated by death or divorce, and therefore Robert's purported marriage to Sadie was void, and he was free to contract a common law marriage with Laura; and that Laura, as the wife of Robert Alexander, was entitled to compensation covering a period of three hundred weeks. That payments of compensation to Laura Alexander, the wife, and Eunice Alexander, the half sister, were to run concurrently.

This review is by writ of certiorari, and no question is raised as to the amount of the award to either the wife or to the half sister, nor as to their dependency.

Appellant insists, first, that the evidence is not sufficient to support a finding that Robert and Laura entered into a marriage contract; and, second, that if they did enter into such a contract it was void because of the incapacity of the parties--both having at the time living undivorced spouses.

In a compensation case when the review in this Court is by certiorari, as here, this Court will not look to the bill of exceptions to find the weight of the evidence as to any fact found by the trial court, but simply to see if there is any evidence or reasonable inference from evidence to support facts found by the court. If, on any reasonable view of the evidence, it will support the conclusions reached by the trial court, the finding and judgment will not be disturbed. Ex parte Coleman, 211 Ala. 248, 100 So. 114, 115; Ex parte Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co., 207 Ala. 219-221, 92 So. 458; Ex parte Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 208 Ala. 216, 94 So. 289; Ex parte Nunnally Co., 209 Ala. 82, 95 So. 343; Ex parte Shaw, 210 Ala. 185, 97 So. 694; Ex parte Thomas, 209 Ala. 276, 96 So. 233; Ex parte Little Cahaba Coal Co., 213 Ala. 596, 105 So. 648; Benoit Coal Mining Co. et al. v. Moore et al., 215 Ala. 220, 109 So. 878; Martin v. Sloss-Sheffield S. & I. Co., 216 Ala. 500, 113 So. 578; Bell v. Tennessee Coal & Iron Co., Ala.Sup., 199 So. 813.

Much of petitioner's argument reflects upon the credibility of the testimony touching the existence of the marriage contract between Robert and Laura, rather than upon the non-existence of testimony supporting the finding of that fact by the trial court. Under the rule enunciated above, the following excerpts will suffice to uphold the finding of the trial court that Robert and Laura entered into a marriage contract Laura testified: "At the time of Robert's death he and I were living together as man and wife in Sleepy Hollow." Question: "And did Robert ever call you his wife to anybody else during the time you were living there?" Answer: "He did, the furniture man and most of them up there. He called me his wife." Question: "And did you ever call him your husband in his presence to anybody else?" Answer: "Yes, sir. At the time of his death, he was supporting me and I was entirely dependent on him. * * * I slept in the same room and same bed with him. I did the things any wife would do around the house there. No body else lived there except me and Robert." O.W. Baker, agent of the Industrial Life and Health Insurance Company, testified: "All of Robert's insurance was made to Laura Alexander as his wife. She was designated as the beneficiary. We had Laura's insurance too, policy number 8901656, Laura M. Alexander, payable to Robert Alexander, husband, beneficiary." Essie Johnson, mother of Laura, testified: Question: "Did Robert ever tell you that he and Laura were married?" Answer: "Yes, sir. That occasion as close as I can come, was in January '35. There was a little something come up--you know--she was pregnant, and so I got after him about it, and he said he was going to take her and marry her. So he left the first pay day in January, and asked me to go with him and I told him I could not go, and he said, 'well, I am going down and marry her,' and I said all right. * * * When they come back, I said, 'well did you all marry?', and he said 'yes, if you don't believe me, ask my motor boss' * * * After that I heard him introduce her as his wife: he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 cases
  • Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Watford
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 3 d4 Fevereiro d4 1944
    ...second marriage and of the innocence of the parties to it.' " Ex parte Young, 211 Ala. 508, 101 So. 51, 52. See also Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Alexander, supra. have examined the evidence in this case with great care. There is no need to set it out in detail. We conclude that it w......
  • Lott v. Toomey
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 20 d5 Setembro d5 1985
    ...proving its invalidity upon the party attacking the marriage. Cross v. Rudder, 380 So.2d 766 (Ala.1979); Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Alexander, 241 Ala. 476, 3 So.2d 46 (1941). Thus, Leona bears the burden of establishing that the marriage of Clarence and Barbara had not been dissol......
  • Faggard v. Filipowich, 1 Div. 246.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 25 d4 Julho d4 1946
    ...Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Watford, 245 Ala. 425, 17 So.2d 166; Freed v. Sallade, 245 Ala. 505, 17 So.2d 868; Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Alexander, supra; Bell v. Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co., 240 Ala. 422, So. 813; Ex parte McLondon, 239 Ala. 564, 195 So. 733; Walker v. ......
  • Jordan v. Copeland
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 22 d4 Junho d4 1961
    ...notwithstanding he is thereby required to prove a negative. Ex parte Young, 211 Ala. 508, 101 So. 51; Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Alexander, 241 Ala. 476, 3 So.2d 46; Freed v. Sallade, 245 Ala. 505, 17 So.2d 868; Jordan v. Courtney, 248 Ala. 390, 27 So.2d 783. So, the question prese......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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