Bell v. Mar-Mil Steel & Supply Co., MAR-MIL
Decision Date | 05 March 1975 |
Docket Number | MAR-MIL |
Citation | 54 Ala.App. 432,309 So.2d 471 |
Parties | In re Ernest BELL v.STEEL AND SUPPLY CO. Ex parteSTEEL AND SUPPLY CO. Civ. 496. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Jack Livingston and Ronald A. Drummond, Scottsboro, for petitioner.
John M. Baker, Fort Payne, for Ernest Bell.
This dispute arises from a petition for writ of mandamus to compel respondent-judge to set aside an order requiring the petitioner to pay workmen's compensation benefits in a lump sum.
In June of 1972, the Circuit Court of DeKalb County, Alabama, entered a judgment for workmen's compensation benefits in favor of one Ernest Bell and against petitioner. No appeal was taken from this judgment and the judgment in pertinent part is as follows:
'IT IS FURTHER CONSIDERED, ORDERED AND DECREED that the Defendant pay the sum of $50.00 per week as temporary total disability benefits for a total of 139 additional weeks with the date beginning May 26, 1972 and that after the payment of the additional amount of 139 weeks of temporary total disability that the Defendant pay the sum of $38.03 for an additional 64 weeks which represents permanent partial disability benefits at the rate of 75 per cent permanent partial disability and after the payment of such sums for said additional 64 weeks thereby making a total of 300 weeks of disability paid that the Defendant be discharged from all further liability for disability benefits and further that the Plaintiff have and recover of the Defendant a judgment for this amount as well as that provided in the preceding paragraph.
'IT IS FURTHER CONSIDERED, ORDERED AND DECREED that the Defendant pay the cost of this cause for all of which let execution issue unless presently paid and for future weekly installments execution may issue unless paid when due.
The payments as provided in the final decree have been made, and at the time this petition for mandamus was filed, weekly benefits for permanent partial disability remain to be paid.
In August of 1974, Ernest Bell, by petition, prayed that the Circuit Court of DeKalb County require the petitioner to pay the remaining benefits in a lump sum without commutation. Bell's petition was filed pursuant to Tit. 26, § 279(C), par. 9, Code of Ala. (1940).
Section 279(C), par. 9, Code of Ala. (1940), was approved by the Governor and became law on September 17, 1973, and reads as follows:
(Emphasis added)
To the petition of Ernest Bell, the petitioner here filed appropriate pleadings questioning the authority of the circuit court to grant the relief requested by Bell.
Thereafter, in November of 1974, the learned respondent-judge entered an order requiring the petitioner to pay the remaining workmen's compensation benefits due Bell in a lump sum without commutation. Hence, this mandamus proceeding.
This court, in December of 1974, issued the alternate writ and now issues the peremptory writ.
This court is of the opinion that the legislature did not intend by the passage of Tit. 26, § 279(C), par. 9, Code of Ala. (1940), to allow a judgment being complied with, which had become final two years prior, to be altered.
In construing a statute a court must, if possible, avoid such construction as would place a statute in conflict with other statutes. State ex rel. Ward v. Martin, 160 Ala. 190, 48 So. 847; State v. Community Blood and Plasma Service, Inc., 48 Ala.App. 658, 267 So.2d 176. Additionally, statutory construction further requires that statutes should be resolved in favor of each other when possible so as to form one harmonious plan. Walker County v. White, 248 Ala. 53, 26 So.2d 253; Gulf State Steel Co. v. Justice, 204 Ala. 577, 87 So. 211; State v. Community Blood and Plasma Service, Inc., Supra.
There are numerous statutes recognizing the need for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brand v. State
... ... intended to enact, American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister, 207 U.S. 284, 28 S.Ct. 72, 52 ... Martin, 160 Ala. 190, 48 So. 847 (1909); Bell v. MarMill Steel & Supply Co., Civ.App., 54 ... ...
-
Brand v. State
... ... intended to enact, American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister , 207 U.S. 284, 28 S.Ct. 72, 52 ... Martin , 160 Ala. 190, 48 So. 847 (1909); Bell v. Mar-Mill Steel & Supply Co. , Civ. App. , 54 ... ...
-
Mayberry v. State
... ... , appellant was an employee of South Central Bell Telephone Company [hereinafter "Bell"]. His ... intended to enact, American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister, 207 U.S. 284, 28 S.Ct. 72, 52 ... 190, 48 So. 847 (1909); Bell v. Mar-Mill Steel & Supply Co., Civ.App., 54 Ala.App. 432, 309 ... ...
-
State ex rel. Hodge v. Town of Turtle Lake
... ... Kelley Co., Inc. v. Marquardt, 172 Wis.2d 234, 250, 493 ... have tendered issues for adjudication); Bell v. Mar-Mil Steel and Supply Co., 54 Ala.App. 432, ... ...