Bryant v. Central Foundry Co.
| Citation | 217 Ala. 332,116 So. 345 |
| Decision Date | 29 March 1928 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 781 |
| Parties | BRYANT v. CENTRAL FOUNDRY CO. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Certiorari to Circuit Court, Calhoun County; R.B. Carr, Judge.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Rosa Bryant against the Central Foundry Company to recover compensation on account of injury and death of an employee. Judgment denying compensation, and petitioner applies for certiorari. Writ denied; judgment affirmed.
Rutherford Lapsley, of Anniston, for plaintiff.
Knox Acker, Sterne & Liles, of Anniston, for defendant.
The finding of facts and conclusions prescribed by section 7578 of the Code in cases under the Workmen's Compensation Act has an analogy in the special finding of fact under section 9500, in actions at law. The statute contemplates, not a recital of the evidence, with its conflicting lights and tendencies, but a determination by the trial judge of the facts established by the evidence, responsive to the issues presented, with the conclusion as to whether the facts found establish or fail to establish the liability asserted; and there should be a finding of every fact necessary to sustain the judgment of the court. Brock v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 114 Ala. 431, 21 So. 994; McCarley v. White, 154 Ala. 295, 45 So. 155; Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Keefe, 216 Ala 379, 113 So. 400.
This finding of fact and conclusions of the trial court, in a proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act, unlike the finding in an ordinary action at law, are made conclusive as between the parties, by the statute, subject to a limited review by certiorari. Hardisty v. Woodward Iron Co., 214 Ala. 256, 107 So. 837; Paramount Coal Co. v Williams, 214 Ala. 394, 108 So. 70.
The finding of fact and conclusion of the trial judge, entered upon the minutes of the court in the case at bar, are in substantial compliance with the statute, and the question presented is whether there is any legal evidence to sustain the finding and conclusion that the injury received by the workman in no way contributed to his death.
The testimony of Dr. Posey is more than the testimony of a mere expert. He treated the deceased workman from the time of his injury up until a short time before his death, not only for the injury, but for other serious ailments, and his testimony tends to show that the workman had substantially recovered from the injuries received as the result of an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leilich v. Chevrolet Motor Co.
...is based and not merely to state its conclusions from the evidence produced. Midland Coal Co. v. Commission, 277 Ill. 333; Bryant v. Foundry Co., 116 So. 345. (11) provision in section 21 (b) of the act, to the effect, "The death benefit provided for shall be payable in installments in the ......
-
Leilich v. Chevrolet Motor Co.
...is based and not merely to state its conclusions from the evidence produced. Midland Coal Co. v. Commission, 277 Ill. 333; Bryant v. Foundry Co., 116 So. 345. (11) The provision in section 21 (b) of the act, to the effect, "The death benefit provided for shall be payable in installments in ......
-
Alabama Textile Products Corp. v. Grantham
...and conclusions is necessary to make serviceable the review by certiorari which the statute provides * * *.' And in Bryant v. Central Foundry Co., 217 Ala. 332, 116 So. 345, it was said of § 7578, Code 1923, the progenitor of § 304, Title 26: 'The statute contemplates, not a recital of the ......
-
Landers v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc.
...Ala. 219, 92 So. 458 (1922); and Addison Fabricators, Inc. v. Davis, 892 So.2d 440 (Ala.Civ.App. 2004). In Bryant v. Central Foundry Co., 217 Ala. 332, 333, 116 So. 345, 345 (1928), our supreme court, in discussing a predecessor statute to § 25-5-88, "The statute contemplates, not a recital......