Escue v. Lux Time Division of Robertshaw Controls

Decision Date02 August 1971
Parties, 225 Tenn. 533 Mrs. Willie L. ESCUE, Appellee--Petitioner, v. LUX TIME DIVISION OF ROBERTSHAW CONTROLS, Appellant-Defendant.
CourtTennessee Supreme Court

Vester Neal Agee, Lebanon, for appellee-petitioner.

Solon Fitzpatrick, Carthage, for appellant-defendant.

OPINION

DYER, Chief Justice.

This is a workmen's compensation case wherein Mrs. Willie L. Escue (employee) filed a petition against Lux Time Division of Robertshaw Controls (employer) pursuant to T.C.A. § 50--1025, seeking an increase in compensation benefits over and above those previously awarded. The employer appeals from an award of additional benefits.

The original award was for benefits based on temporary total disability ending January 1, 1967, and then an award of weekly benefits of $36.00 for one hundred twenty weeks for permanent patial disability. Under this award the last weekly payment was due April 20, 1969. The petition in the case at bar was filed April 25, 1969, under T.C.A. § 50--1025, raising the issue it was filed too late.

The original award made in this case was subject to modification under T.C.A. § 50--1025, but a petition for modification was required to be filed within the time the weekly payments were being made, since after all payments were made and the judgment fully discharged, the Court would lack jurisdiction over the case. Nelson v. Cambria Coal Co., 178 Tenn. 389, 160 S.W.2d 412 (1942), and American Snuff Company v. Helms, 201 Tenn. 622, 301 S.W.2d 348 (1957). The parties admit such is the law and further admit, as found by the trial judge, this petition ot modify the original award was filed five days too late. The issue here is whether the employer, as found by the trial judge, is estopped to raise this issue under the following facts:

The original award was being paid by employer's insurance carrier. The insurance company mailed checks monthly in the amount necessary to compensate employee for four weeks' benefits due to employee's counsel in Lebanon, Wilson County, Tennessee. Counsel, after endorsement, forwarded same to employee in Portland, Sumner County, Tennessee. On or about April 9, 1969, the insurance company forwarded its check no. 3472336, in the amount of $216.00, representing six weeks' benefits due to employee's counsel who, after endorsement, forwarded this check to employee. Employee received check no. 3472336 about the middle of April, 1969, and without endorsement returned same to the insurance company. It is admitted check no. 3472336 represented the final payments due on the original award.

Check no. 3472336 on the line designated 'For' carried the following entry: 'Compensation: 3--25 to 5--6 (Final Payment.)' Employee alleged she relied on the dates 3--25 to 5--6 entered by the insurance company and was led to believe by these dates that she was entitled to weekly payments through May 6, 1969. The trial judge so found holding the employer was estopped to raise this issue.

We do not think the facts here support the application of the doctrine of estoppel. It is essential to estoppel that the person claiming it was himself not only destitute of knowledge of the facts, but without available means of obtaining such knowledge since there can be no estoppel where both parties have the opportunity and means of ascertaining the truth. Rambeau v. Farris, 186 Tenn. 503, 212 S.W.2d 359 (1948). The truth sought here is the date the final payment was due on the original award which when fully paid discharged the judgment and denuded the court of jurisdiction. This date could be easily ascertained by the court records open equally to both parties.

The employee has filed a motion to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Faust v. Metropolitan Government
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • 3 Mayo 2006
    ...212 S.W.2d 359, 361 (1948). See also City of Lebanon v. Baird, 756 S.W.2d 236, 244 (Tenn.1988); Escue v. Lux Time Division of Robertshaw Controls, 225 Tenn. 533, 472 S.W.2d 228, 229 (1971); and W.C. Early Co. v. Williams, 135 Tenn. 249, 186 S.W. 102, 105 (Tenn.1916). Like everyone else, Jud......
  • Keystone Leasing v. Peoples Protective Life Ins.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 28 Abril 1981
    ...Warren Bros. Co. v. Metropolitan Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, 540 S.W.2d 243 (Tenn.App.1976); Escue v. Lux Time Div. of Robertshaw Controls, 225 Tenn. 533, 472 S.W.2d 228 (1971). A multiplicity of factors thus militate against a finding that PPLIC must be estopped to deny the repre......
  • Nat'l Healthcare Corp. v. Barker
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • 13 Junio 2016
    ...can be no estoppel where both parties have the opportunity and means of ascertaining the truth." Escue v. Lux Time Div. of Robertshaw Controls, 472 S.W.2d 228, 229 (Tenn. 1971) (citing Rambeau v. Farris, 212 S.W.2d 359, 361 (Tenn. 1948)). And generally, the mere failure to act or "delay in ......
  • Hardwick Clothes, Inc. v. Jahn (In re HC Liquidation, Inc.)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Tennessee
    • 13 Noviembre 2019
    ...and means of ascertaining the truth." Nat'l Healthcare Corp. , 2016 WL 3232725, at *5 (quoting Escue v. Lux Time Div. of Robertshaw Controls , 225 Tenn. 533, 472 S.W.2d 228, 229 (Tenn. 1971) ). Given the ambiguity in the documents and the unfinished exhibits discussed herein, the court does......
  • 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