Barlowe v. Employers Ins. Co. of Alabama
Citation | 237 Ala. 665,188 So. 896 |
Decision Date | 11 May 1939 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 42. |
Parties | BARLOWE v. EMPLOYERS INS. CO. OF ALABAMA et al. |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; J.H. Webb, Judge.
Suit in equity for declaratory judgment by Jack Barlowe against the Employers Insurance Company of Alabama and others. From decree sustaining demurrers to the bill, complainant appeals.
Affirmed.
Geo. S Taylor and Wm. H. Cowan, both of Mobile, for appellant.
Vernol R. Jansen, of Mobile, for appellees.
Bill in equity by appellant, complainant in the court below, against the Employers Insurance Company of Alabama, corporation, the Alabama State Highway Commission, Gaston Scott, L.L. Herzberg and H.D. Burnum, each as members of said commission, and Gaston Scott, L.L. Herzberg and H.D. Burnum. The bill seeks a declaratory judgment, and a "mandatory injunction in the nature of a mandamus" to enforce the payment and satisfaction of the judgment. In order that the full nature of the relief sought may be better understood, the prayer of the bill appears in the report of the case.
It appears from the bill that the appellant was employed by the Alabama State Highway Commission as "a truck driver and laborer" and as such was engaged, on December 10, 1937 "in the construction, maintaining or repairing of public roads and bridges in Mobile County, Alabama," and while so engaged in the performance of his said duties, he received an injury which was the proximate result of an accident "which arose out of and during the course of his employment by the respondents, and that a controversy had arisen between the complainant and the respondents as to the amount of the compensation due the complainant by reason of said injuries and damages." The bill of complaint catalogues the injuries alleged to have been suffered by the complainant.
The bill avers that the said Scott, Herzberg and Burnum, as members of said Alabama State Highway Commission had notice and actually became aware of complainant's said injuries and claim, and immediately after said accident sent complainant to a doctor.
The bill further avers that the Alabama State Highway Commission with the approval of the Governor, had entered into a contract of insurance with the said Employers Insurance Company of Alabama whereby the latter insured the complainant and other employees of said Alabama State Highway Commission "covering a certain amount to be paid to the employees of the Alabama State Highway Commission actually engaged in the construction, maintaining, or repairing of public roads and bridges, who by accidental means may be killed or injured, provided that the amount paid (to be paid) to any such party on account of accidental death or injury not exceed the amount as provided by the Compensation Act of Alabama, approved September 6th, 1935 * * *; that the said Alabama State Highway Commission, and said members composing said Commission did contract with the said Employers Insurance Company of Alabama, a corporation, to insure the life and health of complainant in this cause; that this contract was approved by the Governor."
It is also averred that the said Employers Insurance Company of Alabama paid the complainant approximately twenty-three weeks compensation. Then follows further averments tending to show that his injuries were such as to cause temporary total disability "and will probably cause permanent total disability." Complainant claims "compensation of the respondents in the sum of fifty-five percentum of his average weekly earnings for such additional period of time as he may be entitled to under said Compensation Act of Alabama" and also for amounts expended and to be expended for medicine etc.
The said Employers Insurance Company of Alabama, and the other named respondents separately demurred to the bill of complaint. Among the grounds of demurrer assigned by each is: (1) There is no equity in the bill.
The court sustained the demurrers of the respondents, and from these interlocutory decrees this appeal is prosecuted.
It requires no argument to demonstrate that the Alabama State Highway Commission and the said Gaston Scott, L.L. Herzberg and H.D. Burnum, as members of said Commission, are agencies of the State of Alabama, in the strict sense of the term, and are not, as such, subject to suit. As to these named respondents the instant suit is essentially a suit against the state, which is prohibited by Section 14 of the State Constitution of 1901. State Tax Commission et al. v. Commercial Realty Company, 236 Ala. 358, 182 So. 31; State Docks Commission v. Barnes, 225 Ala. 403, 143 So. 581; Ex parte Board of School Com'rs of Mobile County, 230 Ala. 304, 161 So. 108; Alabama Girls' Industrial School v. Reynolds, 143 Ala. 579, 42 So. 114; Cox v. Board of Trustees of University of Alabama, 161 Ala. 639, 49 So. 814; Kansas City Bridge Co. v. Alabama State Bridge Corporation, 5 Cir., 59 F.2d 48; Id., 287 U.S. 644, 53 S.Ct. 90, 77 L.Ed. 557; Alabama College v. Harman, 234 Ala. 446, 175 So. 394.
The bill, in so far as it seeks relief against the Alabama State Highway Commission, and the said Scott, Herzberg and Burnum, in their official capacities as members of said Commission, is clearly without equity.
It is not insisted that Scott, Herzberg and Burnum, as individuals, acting under color of office or otherwise, had committed any wrongful act, involving a tort on the rights of the complainant, or that they breached any contract with the complainant, or that they personally assumed any duty or obligation arising out of the employment of the complainant by the Alabama State Highway Commission, which they had breached.
The bill in so far as it seeks relief against the said Scott, Herzberg and Burnum as individuals is also wholly without equity.
This brings us to a consideration of the bill as respects the corporate respondent, Employers Insurance Company of Alabama.
The Amendatory Act of 1935, amending section 6 of Article 1 of an Act entitled an Act, "To provide a general system of legislation pertaining to public roads, highways and bridges including therein the establishment of a State Highway Department and State Highway Commission * * *," provides among other things: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Donoghue v. Bunkley
... ... v. BUNKLEY et al. 1 Div. 245. Supreme Court of Alabama February 28, 1946 ... [25 So.2d 62] ... [247 ... Ala ... Woodward Iron Co., 236 Ala. 668, 184 So. 692; ... Barlowe v. Employee Ins. Co., 237 Ala. 665, 188 So ... 896; State v. Inman, ... ...
-
Vesta Fire Ins. Corp. v. Milam & Co. Constr., Inc.
...Ala. 226, 198 So. 616 (1940); Employers Ins. Co. of Alabama v. Johnston, 238 Ala. 26, 189 So. 58 (1939); Barlowe v. Employers Ins. Co. of Alabama, 237 Ala. 665, 188 So. 896 (1939). The only condition being that the third person must have been intended to be directly and not incidentally ben......
-
Burgreen Contracting Co., Inc. v. Goodman
...a promise made for his benefit even though he is a stranger both to the contract and the consideration. Barlowe v. Employers Ins. Co. of Alabama et al., 237 Ala. 665, 188 So. 896; Employers Ins. Co. of Alabama v. Johnston, 238 Ala. 26, 189 So. 58; Fite v. Pearson, 215 Ala. 521, 111 So. 15; ......
-
Williams v. Hank's Ambulance Service, Inc.
...the collection of taxes, State Tax Commission v. Commercial Realty Co.,, 236 Ala. 358, 182 So. 31 [ (1938) ]; Barlowe v. Employers Ins. Co., 237 Ala. 665, 188 So. 896 [ (1939) ]; and a suit which seeks to enjoin a prosecution of an indictable offense, Montiel v. Holcombe, 240 Ala. 352, 199 ......