Ex parte Johnston
| Decision Date | 19 December 1935 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 892 |
| Citation | 165 So. 108,231 Ala. 458 |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
| Parties | Ex parte JOHNSTON. |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 23, 1936
Certiorari to Circuit Court, Mobile County; J. Blocker Thornton, Judge.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by William T Johnston, claimant, opposed by one Ingersoll, employer wherein claimant was awarded compensation. To review a judgment discontinuing disability payments, claimant petitions for certiorari.
Writ granted, and judgment quashed.
Arthur J. Kearley, of Mobile, for petitioner.
Gordon Edington & Leigh, of Mobile, for respondent.
By an adversary proceeding instituted in the circuit court by the petitioner on June 24, 1933, as authorized by section 7578 of the Code 1923, he was, on October 18, 1933, by a judgment of the circuit court, awarded compensation for temporary total disability, as provided by section 7551, subsections (a) and (h), amounting to 60 per cent. of his weekly earnings; $12.60 for a period of 300 weeks, "until the total sum of $3,780.00 *** shall have been paid; or should the disability sooner terminate before the expiration of the said 300 weeks' period by operation and/or further treatment, then in that event compensation shall then cease and determine at such period." From that judgment, on November 7, 1933 the employer, Ingersoll, appealed, and on November 29, 1933, as appears of record here, dismissed his appeal.
On April 25, 1935, said Ingersoll filed a motion in the circuit court alleging "that he has paid in accordance with the said judgment, and that now he has been advised, and so states, that the disability of the plaintiff has terminated and that he should not be called upon to make further payments under the said decree." (Italics supplied.)
The circuit court, upon the hearing of the motion, as the order recites, "*** The Court being satisfied from such testimony [that is, testimony given on the hearing of the motion] that the plaintiff was not suffering from a total disability, but that he was suffering from only a permanent partial disability, and the Court being of the further opinion, from said evidence in said cause, that the defendant has already paid to the plaintiff an aggregate amount as compensation for his disability equal to or more than he would be entitled to under the law for such permanent partial disability," granted the motion.
From the foregoing statement, it appears that the circuit court more than 18 months after the rendition of its final decree, on motion of the defendant, undertook to re-examine the facts and redetermine the character of plaintiff's injuries and the degree of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Bank of Columbia v. McElroy
-
Sloss Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Nations
...recovered. The court, after hearing the evidence, reluctantly but "deferentially" following the holding of this court in Ex parte Johnston, 231 Ala. 458, 165 So. 108, declined reopen the controversy, ascertained the balance due and ordered execution to issue. In Central Iron & Coal Co. v. C......
-
Tombrello Coal Co. v. Fortenberry
...recovery of moneys thereby determined to be due.'' This case was re-affirmed in Ex parte Johnston, 231 Ala. 458, 165 So. 108, 109. In the Johnston case there was a like provision re-examination of the question as to the continuance of the disability. There the defendant, also, sought to sho......
-
EX PARTE KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION
...with an order in a workers'-compensation case in which a trial court used language purporting to retain jurisdiction: Ex parte Johnston, 231 Ala. 458, 165 So. 108 (1935), and Ex parte DCH Regional Medical Center, 571 So.2d 1162 (Ala.Civ. App.1990). In Ex parte Johnston, the trial court ente......