Hardware Mut. Cas. Co. v. Carlton
| Decision Date | 28 July 1942 |
| Parties | HARDWARE MUT. CASUALTY CO. et al. v. CARLTON et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Hendry County; George W. Whitehurst, judge.
Shackleford, Farrior & Shannon, of Tampa, for appellants.
Lewis E. Purvis and L. J. Robbins, both of Arcadia, for appellees.
Subsequent to the entry of our judgment of affirmance herein on June 16, 1942, the appellee has filed petition for an order of this Court awarding attorney's fees against the appellants.
It is the contention of appellee that she is entitled to the order prayed under the provisions of Sec. 34(a) of Chapter 17481 of Acts 1935, as amended by section 11 of Chapter 20672, Acts of 1941.
This statute substantially changed the liability of the employer and the insurance carrier from what it was when the injury occurred.
The acceptance of the application of Workmen's Compensation Statutes, Acts 1935, c. 17481, by employer, employee and insurance carrier constitutes a contract between the parties embracing the provisions of the statutes as they may exist at the time of any injury compensable under the terms of the statute. See Chamberlain v. Florida Power Corporation, 144 Fla. 719, 198 So. 486; Liberato v. Royer, 270 U.S. 535, 46 S.Ct. 373, 70 L.Ed. 719.
It, therefore, follows that when claimant was injured in November of 1940, the Act of 1941, supra, was not in existence and was not a part of the contract.
In Page on Contracts, Vol. 6, Sec. 3674, the writer says:
It appears to us that to hold the provisions of Sec. 34(a), Chapter 20672, Acts of 1941, retroactive would be in violation of Sec. 10, Article I of the Constitution of the United States.
Therefore, the petition must be denied.
TERRELL, J., agrees to conclusion.
CHAPMAN, J., not participating.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Am. Suzuki Motor Corp.
...constitutional sense when the substantive rights of the parties to the contract are changed, Hardware Mutual Casualty Company v. Carlton [151 Fla. 238], 9 So.2d 359 (Fla.1942), or where new and different liabilities are imposed thereunder, Manning v. Travelers Insurance Company, 250 So.2d 8......
-
In re Am. Suzuki Motor Corp.
...constitutional sense when the substantive rights of the parties to the contract are changed, Hardware Mutual Casualty Company v. Carlton, 9 So.2d 359 (Fla. 1942), or where new and different liabilities are imposed thereunder, Manning v. Travelers Insurance Company, 250 So.2d 872 (Fla. 1971)......
-
Stancil v. United States
...Ahmed's Case, 278 Mass. 180, 179 N.E. 684, 79 A.L.R. 669, permits the retrospective application of the statute. Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. Carlton, 151 Fla. 238, 9 So.2d 359, holds to the contrary by saying that an injury constitutes a contract between the employee, the employer, and t......
-
Foliage Design Systems, Inc. v. Fernandez
...of County Commissioners, 442 So.2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Sullivan v. Mayo, 121 So.2d 424 (Fla.1960); Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. Carlton, 151 Fla. 238, 9 So.2d 359 (1942). ...