Federal Automobile Ins. Ass'n v. Abrams
Decision Date | 17 May 1928 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 36 |
Citation | 217 Ala. 539,117 So. 85 |
Parties | FEDERAL AUTOMOBILE INS. ASS'N v. ABRAMS. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; William M. Walker Judge.
Bill in equity by Constance Abrams against the Federal Automobile Insurance Association and another. From a decree overruling its demurrer to the bill, defendant insurance association appeals. Affirmed.
London Yancey & Brower, and Frank Bainbridge, all of Birmingham, for appellant.
Leader & Ullman and C.S. Wurtzburger, all of Birmingham, for appellee.
The appeal was from the ruling on demurrer. This is a proceeding in equity under the provisions of sections 8376 and 8377 of the Code of 1923. The complainant was injured in an automobile accident, and obtained a judgment against the respondent therefor. The bill, as last amended, alleges that the respondent, Federal Automobile Insurance Association, a reciprocal insurance association, issued a policy of insurance to the said respondent, Fannie E. Jordan, on April 14, 1925, under the terms of which it agreed to indemnify her against loss resulting directly from the operation of the automobile which injured the complainant. The chancellor overruled the amended demurrer to the bill as last amended and this action of the trial court is presented for review.
The constitutionality of the two sections of the Code (sections 8376, 8377) under which the instant suit was brought has not been passed upon by this court. These sections were first enacted in Massachusetts, and its Supreme Court announced that both sections were constitutional. Lorando v. Gethro, 228 Mass. 181, 117 N.E. 185, 1 A.L.R. 1374. This case was adverted to in Globe Indemnity Co. v. Martin, 214 Ala. 646, 108 So. 761, and these sections are held not to be retroactive. And in the case of United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Yeates (Ala.Sup.) 115 So. 174, said sections of the Code were again considered on a demurrer to the bill, where the question of the constitutionality was not involved or decided. The cases of Globe Indemnity Co. v. Martin and Lorando v. Gethro, supra, are cited with approval in the Yeates Case, supra. It should be further noted that Alabama and Massachusetts are the only states that have adopted the provisions of our statutes now under consideration, and that the decision sustaining the constitutionality (Lorando v. Gethro, supra) was rendered prior to the enactment here. This fact, however, will not prevent us from passing upon the constitutionality of said statutes.
It is urged that it does not sufficiently appear, from the allegations of the bill, that the defendant in the law court (Jordan) was insured against the damage or loss sustained by complainant at the time the right of action against her arose. These facts are shown by the amended pleading. The date of the injury and duration of the contract of insurance are specifically averred, when the bill as amended and its exhibits are considered together. Grimsley v. First Ave. C. & L. Co. (Ala.Sup.) 115 So. 90, and authorities. The bill as last amended was not subject to demurrer directed thereto, as to the foregoing ground of demurrer challenging the sufficiency of the averment of injury within the life of the contract period.
The averments of paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of the bill, as amended, and their relation to the other averments contained therein, are sufficient averments of due process to a final judgment in favor of complainant and against defendant in such trial--the assured--duly rendered and entered in accordance with the verdict of the jury, that the same had not been satisfied, and more than 30 days had elapsed since the rendition of said judgment. It was the averment of such a final judgment (Lewis v. Martin, 210 Ala. 401, 410, 98 So. 635) entered upon and pursuant to the verdict that was within the purview of sections 8376, 8377 of the Code, and the general acceptation of the words "final judgment." For general definitions of a final judgment, see 3 C.J. 441, and that by this court in Lewis v. Martin, supra; Ex parte Jonas, 186 Ala. 567, 574, 64 So. 960; Beall v. Lehman, Durr Co., 128 Ala. 165, 29 So. 12; Tatum v. Yahn, 130 Ala. 575, 29 So. 201; Stallworth v. Brown, 155 Ala. 217, 46 So. 467; De Graffenried v. Breitling, 192 Ala. 254, 68 So. 265. It was not necessary for complainant to aver that neither a motion for new trial nor an appeal was pending when the instant bill was filed. If such be the fact, it would have been the subject of appropriate defensive pleading to show that the bill was prematurely filed. The trial court, in equity, or this court, will presume such appeal or motion, in the absence of an appropriate plea or answer raising the question of right to maintain the bill.
Thus we are brought to the assignment of error that deals with the constitutionality of the statute. The case of Lorando v. Gethro, 228 Mass. 181, 117 N.E. 185, is made the subject of report and annotations in 1 A.L.R. pp. 1374, 1375, to the effect that a state statute for the attaching of liability of indemnity insurance becomes absolute when loss occurs that is covered by the contract and does not "destroy any ground of defense which may exist against the claim made"; that those entering into contracts given "special force and effect by statute are held to contemplate and assent to the force and effect which the statute attributes to them"; and that no organic right is invaded by the Legislature establishing appropriate forms of relief for existing rights, or such as are rightly created, and providing equitable procedure for the protection and enforcement of the rights of such respective parties. That suit in equity was by reason of Stat.Mass.1914, c. 464, §§ 1, 2; the same being in form and effect as our sections 8376, 8377.1 A.L.R. 1375, 1376, 1378. And the demurrer challenged its constitutionality. The court said of the term "loss" as used in section 1 (section 8376, Code of Ala. 1923):
The Massachusetts court said of the provisions of section 8377, Code:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schwab v. Carter
... ... Coal & Lumber ... Co., 217 Ala. 159, 115 So. 90; Federal Automobile ... Ins. Ass'n v. Abrams, 217 Ala. 539, 540, ... ...
-
Snellings Lumber Co. v. Porter, 5 Div. 101.
... ... Coal & Lumber Co., 217 Ala. 159, 115 So. 90; ... Federal Automobile Ins. Ass'n v. Abrams, 217 ... Ala. 539, 117 So ... ...
-
Indemnity Co. of America v. Bollas
... ... automobile accident involving the automobile of the insured ... and ... casualty." Lunt v. Ætna Life Ins. Co., 253 Mass. 610, ... 149 N.E. 660 ... And ... within the time covered by the policy. Federal Automobile ... Ins. Ass'n v. Abrams, 217 Ala. 539, 117 So ... ...
-
Gains v. Griffin
... ... Lumber Co., 217 Ala. 159, 115 So. 90; Federal ... Automobile Ins. Ass'n v. Abrams, 217 Ala. 539, 540, ... ...