Mangrum v. Ætna Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 27 March 1926
• Citation: 280 S.W. 1011
• Parties: MANGRUM v. ÆTNA LIFE INS. CO.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 1011

280 S.W. 1011

MANGRUM v. ÆTNA LIFE INS. CO.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

March 27, 1926.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Maury County; W. B. Turner, Judge.

Suit by Octa Mangrum against the Ætna Life Insurance Company to have a written agreement under the Workmen's Compensation Act approved. Decree for petitioner, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Pitts, McConnico & Hatcher, of Nashville, for appellant.

Keeble & Seay and A. W. Stockell, Jr., all of Nashville, for appellee.

McKINNEY, J.

John Mangrum was accidentally killed while in the employ of the J. A. Sloan Company. He was survived by his widow, Octa Mangrum. They had no children.

The Sloan Company operated under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and was insured by the defendant company.

The weekly wage paid deceased by the Sloan Company was $15.

Liability was conceded, but a controversy arose as to the amount of compensation the petitioner was entitled to receive under a proper interpretation of the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1919 (Pub. Acts 1919, c. 123), as amended by the Act of 1923 (Pub. Acts 1923, c. 84).

Petitioner contended that she was entitled to 50 per cent. of the weekly wage of her husband for 400 weeks, and threatened to sue if her claim were refused.

The defendant insisted that petitioner was only entitled to 30 per cent. of the weekly wage.

The controversy was bona fide, and the meaning of the act was debatable.

In this situation the parties entered into a written agreement, subject to the approval of the court, by the terms of which the defendant was to pay petitioner 50 per cent. or $7.50 each week for 400 weeks, commencing May 20, 1924.

Before the agreement was approved this court, Caruthers v. Lake County Mfg. Co., 263 S. W. 793, 150 Tenn. 269, held, under similar facts, that the wife was only entitled to receive 30 per cent. of the weekly wage.

Thereupon the defendant importuned petitioner to agree to a modification of their agreement in conformity with the above decision, which she declined to do.

The defendant had been paying petitioner $7.50 per week for nearly 5 months, but declined to pay further.

Thereupon the petitioner instituted this suit for the purpose of having the contract approved and a decree entered in accordance therewith.

The defendant answered the petition and resisted the application for an approval of the contract, upon the ground that it stipulated compensation in excess of that provided by law, and which it was alleged was entered into upon the mistaken idea as to the proper meaning of the act.

The circuit judge entered a decree approving the contract, and awarded petitioner $7.50 for 400 weeks, less payments previously made.

The defendant appealed to this court, and insists that the decree should have been for only 30 per cent. of the weekly wage.

The controversy turns upon a proper construction and interpretation of section 27, c. 123, Acts of 1919, which is as follows:

"That the interested parties shall have the right to settle all matters of compensation between themselves, but all settlements, before the same are binding on either party, shall be approved by the judge of the circuit court of the county where the claim for compensation under this act is entitled to be made. Upon such settlement being approved, judgment shall be rendered thereon by the court and duly entered by the clerk. The costs of the proceeding, which shall not exceed two ($2) dollars shall be borne by the employer."

For the petitioner it is argued that the law favors agreements made by the parties, and that the provision of the act requiring the agreement to be approved by the court was inserted for the purpose of protecting the claimant against imposition and fraud, and that, where no fraud or imposition has been...