Amerson v. Corona Coal & Iron Co., 61

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtTHOMAS, J.
Citation69 So. 601,194 Ala. 175
PartiesAMERSON v. CORONA COAL & IRON CO.
Docket Number61
Decision Date03 June 1915

69 So. 601

194 Ala. 175

AMERSON
v.
CORONA COAL & IRON CO.

No. 61

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 3, 1915


Rehearing Denied June 30, 1915

Appeal from Circuit Court, Walker County; J.J. Curtis, Judge.

Action by M.M. Amerson, as administrator against the Corona Coal & Iron Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

The complaint alleges that plaintiff's intestate was employed by defendant, and while engaged in the duties of his employment a piece of rock or slate fell from the roof of the mine, striking plaintiff's intestate and killing him. The first count declares for a failure to furnish plaintiff's intestate a reasonably safe place in which to work. The second count declares as for a defect in the ways, works, machinery, and plant, in that the rocks or slate were loose, unsafe, and liable to fall. The third count declares the negligence of Norris, the superintendent, in giving negligent orders. The fourth count declares upon the negligence of the same superintendent in negligently placing plaintiff's intestate at a place where the rock or slate was loose. The fifth count was like the first, and went out on demurrer. The contested question seems to have been whether Freeman or the Corona Coal & Iron Company was the employer. The evidence sufficiently appears from the opinion.

Ray & Cooner, of Jasper, for appellant.

Davis & Fite, of Jasper, for appellee.

THOMAS, J.

In Tobler v. Pioneer Mining & Manufacturing Co., 166 Ala. 517, 52 So. 86, this court declared the rule to be that where the plaintiff has introduced his evidence, and it does not tend to prove the cause of action, the court may refuse to hear the evidence of the defendant; but it is only in the absence of all evidence against the defendant that the court should direct a verdict. If there be any evidence which tends to establish the plaintiff's cause, the court should not withdraw the case from the jury, or direct a verdict. It is not for the court to judge of the sufficiency of the evidence, or to decide which of conflicting tendencies of the evidence should be adopted by the jury. McCormack Co. v. Lowe, 151 Ala. 313, 44 So. 47; M., J. & K.C.R.R. Co. v. Bromberg, 141 Ala. 258, 284, 37 So. 395; Shipp et al. v. Shelton, 69 So. 102.

If there was evidence in the cause tending to show that the Corona Coal & Iron Company was really operating the mine, and not J.S. Freeman, then the court committed error in giving the affirmative charge for the defendant. The evidence showed that the Corona Coal & Iron Company issued checks in its name to pay the injured party and others working with him, such checks being good in the purchase of merchandise at the two commissaries of the company, and that the company deducted from the amount of his wages certain insurance premiums, as shown by the "cutting blank of the Corona Coal & Iron Company," signed by "Geo. Adams, Timekeeper"; that the checks for time or wages were turned in at the office of the company, and the money was paid thereon by the company; and that the mines being operated belonged to the company, and had so belonged to it for many years. One witness testified how the coal was carried to a side track by mules and thence by motor; that the mules used had been in the mines six years; that he would say that the [69 So. 602] Corona Coal & Iron Company was the one that had been keeping these mules; that "the commissary at Corona is called the Corona Coal & Iron Company's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
69 practice notes
  • Birmingham Southern R. Co. v. Harrison, 6 Div. 767
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 16, 1919
    ...to withdraw the issue of subsequent negligence from the jury, as sought by defendant's refused charge 3. Amerson v. Coronoa, etc., Co., 194 Ala. 175, 69 So. 601; Tobler v. Pioneer, etc., Co., 166 Ala. 482, 517, 518, 52 So. 86. On this point the plaintiff's evidence tended to show that the e......
  • Denson v. Alabama Fuel & Iron Co., 7 Div. 735
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • December 21, 1916
    ...of the company's money. This conflicting testimony presented an issue of fact for the determination of a jury (Amerson v. Corona Coal Co., 69 So. 601; Tobler v. Pioneer Co., 166 Ala. 517, 52 So. 86)--the existence vel non of the lien, and the fact vel non of its waiver (Harton v. Amason, 71......
  • Crim v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 5 Div. 745
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 13, 1921
    ...of evidence prevailing in this state (Tobler v. Pioneer Min. & Mfg. Co., 166 Ala. 482, 517, 52 So. 86; Amerson v. Corona Coal & Iron Co., 194 Ala. 175 (69 So. 601) authorizes a submission of the facts to the jury for the inferences to be drawn. If defendant's superior official, in authority......
  • McMillan v. Aiken, 1 Div. 127
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • November 18, 1920
    ...196 Ala. 136, 72 So. 68; Crandall-Pettee Co. v. Jebeles & Colias Conf. Co., 195 Ala. 152, 69 So. 964; Amerson v. Coronoa Coal & Iron Co., 194 Ala. 175, 69 So. 601; Morrison v. Clark, 196 Ala. 670, 72 So. 305; Tobler v. Pioneer Min. & Mfg. Co., 166 Ala. 482, 517, 52 So. 86. If there is evide......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
69 cases
  • Birmingham Southern R. Co. v. Harrison, 6 Div. 767
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 16, 1919
    ...to withdraw the issue of subsequent negligence from the jury, as sought by defendant's refused charge 3. Amerson v. Coronoa, etc., Co., 194 Ala. 175, 69 So. 601; Tobler v. Pioneer, etc., Co., 166 Ala. 482, 517, 518, 52 So. 86. On this point the plaintiff's evidence tended to show that the e......
  • Denson v. Alabama Fuel & Iron Co., 7 Div. 735
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • December 21, 1916
    ...of the company's money. This conflicting testimony presented an issue of fact for the determination of a jury (Amerson v. Corona Coal Co., 69 So. 601; Tobler v. Pioneer Co., 166 Ala. 517, 52 So. 86)--the existence vel non of the lien, and the fact vel non of its waiver (Harton v. Amason, 71......
  • Crim v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 5 Div. 745
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 13, 1921
    ...of evidence prevailing in this state (Tobler v. Pioneer Min. & Mfg. Co., 166 Ala. 482, 517, 52 So. 86; Amerson v. Corona Coal & Iron Co., 194 Ala. 175 (69 So. 601) authorizes a submission of the facts to the jury for the inferences to be drawn. If defendant's superior official, in authority......
  • McMillan v. Aiken, 1 Div. 127
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • November 18, 1920
    ...196 Ala. 136, 72 So. 68; Crandall-Pettee Co. v. Jebeles & Colias Conf. Co., 195 Ala. 152, 69 So. 964; Amerson v. Coronoa Coal & Iron Co., 194 Ala. 175, 69 So. 601; Morrison v. Clark, 196 Ala. 670, 72 So. 305; Tobler v. Pioneer Min. & Mfg. Co., 166 Ala. 482, 517, 52 So. 86. If there is evide......
  • 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