Ex parte Woodward Iron Co.
Decision Date | 14 February 1924 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 978. |
Citation | 211 Ala. 111,99 So. 649 |
Parties | EX PARTE WOODWARD IRON CO. v. WOODWARD IRON CO. CROWDER ET AL. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied April 17, 1924.
Certiorari to Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Bessemer Division; J. C B. Gwin, Judge.
Petition of the Woodward Iron Company for certiorari, to review the judgment of said court in a proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by L. B. Crowder and another against the Woodward Iron Company. Writ denied, and judgment affirmed.
Huey & Welch, of Bessemer, for petitioner.
Beddow & Oberdorfer, of Birmingham, opposed.
This proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Law is prosecuted jointly by the dependent father and mother of a deceased employee.
The point is raised that under section 14, subsecs. (3) and (3A) Acts 1919, p. 218, compensation must be paid to dependents "in the order named," that the mother is named before the father, and for this reason compensation must go to the mother only, especially where the minimum fixed by statute is allowed. This contention misconceives the effect of the above provisions of the statute.
Subsection (12) of the same section reads:
"If the deceased employee leave no widow or child or husband entitled to any payment hereunder, but should leave a parent or parents, either or both of whom are wholly dependent on the deceased, there shall be paid if only one parent, twenty-five per centum of the average weekly earnings of the deceased, and if both parents, thirty-five per centum of the average weekly earnings of the deceased to such parent or parents."
It will be noted that the amount of compensation is determined by whether one or both parents are dependent. If both are dependent the statute makes the compensation payable to both.
Subsection (13) of the same section names another group of possible dependents, and provides for payment of compensation to one, or, if more than one, an increased compensation, to be divided between them.
Subsections (5) to (11), inclusive, also fix the order and provide the manner of payment to legal and actual dependents therein named.
Taken together, the clear purpose is that payments shall be made to dependents, total or partial, in the order named in subsection (3), but in amount and manner fixed by the subsections following and other provisions of the statute.
In section 21, subsec. (2), p. 225, it is provided that the employer may suggest adverse claimants not before the court, require them to interplead, and have all claims settled in the one proceeding, to the end that he shall receive a full discharge upon payment of the amount awarded.
In this summary proceeding, all persons claiming as members of a defined class of dependents may unite in the same complaint. Others, who claim in common with or in opposition to any party plaintiff, may intervene and set up their claims, or, failing so to do, the employer may bring them in by interpleader. The determination of the judge filed with the clerk should contain a statement of the law and facts and conclusions upon these several issues. Section 28, p. 227.
The question of first moment in this case is whether the parents were partial dependents of the deceased employee. The findings of the trial judge upon this issue were:
Subsection (3A), § 14, Acts of 1919, p. 218, defines partial dependents thus:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte Hacker
... ... attendant circumstances' and is a question of fact to be ... determined by the trier or triers of the fact. Ex parte ... Woodward Iron Co., 211 Ala. 111, 99 So. 649; McCleskey & ... Whitman v. Howell Cotton Co., 147 Ala. 573, 42 So. 67; ... Alford v. Creagh, 7 Ala.App. 358, ... ...
-
Woodward Iron Co. v. Dean
... ... certiorari, of appellate jurisdictions, are prescriptions of ... the statute. The latter procedure may be aided or illustrated ... by a bill of exceptions under the act and to its desired end, ... in the case recognized by this court. Ex parte ... Sloss-Sheffield S. & I. Co. (Greek's Case), 207 Ala. 219, ... 92 So. 458; Ex parte L. & N.R. Co., 208 Ala. 216, 94 So. 289; ... Ex parte Mt. Carmel Coal Co., 209 Ala. 519, 96 So. 626; Ex ... parte Woodward Iron Co., 211 Ala. 77, 99 So. 97; Ex parte ... Paramount Coal Co., 213 Ala. 281, 104 ... ...
-
Mobile Liners, Inc. v. McConnell
...107 So. 837; Ex parte L. & N. R. Co., 208 Ala. 216, 94 So. 289; Ex parte Gadsden Car Works, 211 Ala. 82, 99 So. 725; Ex parte Woodward Iron Co., 211 Ala. 111, 99 So. 649. We of opinion that the trial court was well within reasonable tendencies of the evidence that decedent, at the time of h......
-
Ross v. Industrial Accident Board
... ... Indiana State Highway ... Commission, 101 Ind.App. 32, 198 N.E. 125; Crowder ... v. Woodward Iron Co., 211 Ala. 111, 99 So. 649; ... Alexander v. State Compensation Commission, 113 ... W.Va ... ...