Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America v. Trimm

• Decision Date: 27 April 1922
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 622.
• Citation: 93 So. 533,207 Ala. 587
• Parties: BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA v. TRIMM.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

93 So. 533

207 Ala. 587

BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA v. TRIMM.

6 Div. 622.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 27, 1922

Rehearing Denied May 25, 1922.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Dan A. Greene, Judge.

Action by Annie L. Trimm against the Brotherhood of Painters. Decorators and Paperhangers of America. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under section 6, p. 449, Acts 1911. Reversed and remanded.

Black Altman & Harris, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Harsh Harsh, & Harsh, of Birmingham, for appellee.

MILLER J.

Mrs Annie L. Trimm sues the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, a corporation, for $300. Her husband, C. A. Trimm, was a member of that labor union in Birmingham; he is dead, and she claims the $300 due her, his widow, by reason of beneficial provisions of the corporation. There was judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals.

The defendant objected to, moved to exclude from the jury, and requested the court to instruct the jury as improper, the following part of the address of attorney for plaintiff to them:

"You know that any member of this local union here would gladly pay his man, if they had charge of the disbursement of the money. Gentlemen, you are not rendering a verdict against the local union here, but these people up in Indiana."

To this argument attorney for defendant objected, and stated to the court:

"I don't think it is fair for the gentlemen to argue to the jury that this judgment is not rendered against local people; that it is rendered against people up in Indiana; and I ask the court to instruct the jury that residence or locality has nothing to do with it."

The court thereupon stated: "That is a matter of argument." The defendant then requested the court to instruct the jury that it was improper argument; the court refused the motion, and defendant duly excepted.

This was illegitimate argument. The defendant was a nonresident corporation. It had the same rights in court in this case as if it had been a citizen of Alabama, or a corporation of this state. Whether it was a resident or nonresident should have no weight with a juror in rendering a verdict in the cause. It was calculated to prejudice the cause of the defendant with the jury. The court did not try to eradicate the attempted, intentional, or unintentional effort to...