Kilby Car & Foundry Co. v. Georgia Casualty Co.

Decision Date03 May 1923
Docket Number7 Div. 379.
Citation209 Ala. 356,96 So. 319
PartiesKILBY CAR & FOUNDRY CO. v. GEORGIA CASUALTY CO.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; Hugh D. Merrill, Special Judge.

Action by the Georgia Casualty Company against the Kilby Car &amp Foundry Company, to recover money paid to an injured employé. From a judgment granting plaintiff's motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Acts 1911, p. 449, § 6. Affirmed.

W. C Tunstall, of Anniston, for appellant.

Blackwell & Bibb and H. H. Evans, all of Anniston, for appellee.

THOMAS J.

This suit is by an insurance carrier for moneys paid out for the assured.

1. The motion is overruled; the several documents exhibited in the bill of exceptions were sufficiently identified. Jones v. First Nat. Bank, 206 Ala. 203, 89 So. 437; Fuller v. Fair, 206 Ala 654, 91 So. 591.

2. The trial of the suit of the insurance carrier against the assured, resulting in a judgment for defendant, was followed by a motion for a new trial, which was granted upon the specific grounds that the trial judge had erred in refusing to give to the jury special written charges, made the basis of the sixth and seventh grounds of the motion for a new trial, and in charging the jury orally "that the employment of William Toney without an employment certificate was not an employment contrary to law as to age within the meaning of the policy of insurance."

The special charges referred to are:

"(10) I charge you that, if you believe the evidence, then the employment of a person under 16 years of age in the rolling mill of the defendant, without an employment certificate, was an employment contrary to law as to age."
"(11) I charge you that, if you believe the evidence, the employment of a person under 16 years of age to do the work William Toney was doing when he was injured was illegal unless the employer had an employment certificate covering such person."

It may not be necessary to observe that, though the trial court limited its ruling on the motion for a new trial to the grounds indicated, this court may look to any ground of the motion as a basis on which to sustain the action of the lower court in granting that motion. Jones v. Jefferson County, 206 Ala. 13, 89 So. 174; Choate v. A. G. S. R. Co., 170 Ala. 590, 54 So. 507.

We will consider the grounds for the motion for a new trial in the order insisted upon in brief and argument. Appellant says of the evidence that it showed that Toney worked in a rolling mill, but not at rolling mill "machinery"-that is, if he was under 16 years of age, his injury was not the result of the unlawful employment.

The stipulations of the parties, evidenced by the policy, were that, in consideration of the premiums and statements in the schedule, the casualty company was required to "indemnify the assured *** against loss arising or resulting from claims upon the assured for damages on account of bodily injuries accidently suffered or alleged to have been suffered while this policy is in force, including death, *** by any employee or employees of the assured by reason of the operation of the trade or business described in the *** schedule, and to defend the assured and pay expenses and costs, subject to the following conditions which are to be construed as conditions precedent. " Then follows, under condition A, subheading 2, the limitation: "Suffered by or caused by any child employed by the assured contrary to law as to age." (Italics supplied).

In the case of Birmingham News Co. v. Andrews, 204 Ala 649, 87 So. 168, cited by counsel, the question is of causal connection between a violation of the Child Labor Law (Gen. Acts 1915, p. 193) by an employer and the injury to the child on which the suit is based. The construction appellant places upon this contract is that the exception in question could have been intended to cover only those cases where illegal employment would have had a causal connection to the injury. In this appellant is in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. v. Malone
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 12 Enero 1928
    ... ... Co., 177 Ala ... 600, 58 So. 549, 40 L.R.A. (N.S.) 652; Georgia Home v ... Allen, 128 Ala. 451, 30 So. 537; Hanover Fire Ins ... Co ... 363, 118 A. 749; First Nat. Bank v. Maryland Casualty ... Co., 142 Md. 454, 121 A. 379, 30 A.L.R. 618; Miller ... v. Home ... unambiguous terms. Kilby, etc., Co. v. Georgia Cas ... Co., 209 Ala. 356, 96 So. 319; Union ... ...
  • AMERICAN FIDEL. & CAS. CO. v. St. Paul-Mercury Indem. Co., 16441.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 9 Octubre 1957
    ...only in given circumstances, the law will uphold the contract according to its true intent and import.\' Kilby Car & Foundry Co. v. Georgia Casualty Co., 209 Ala. 356, 96 So. 319, 320. "`* * * The true intent governs insurance contracts the same as others. * * * no strained construction sho......
  • Hossley v. Union Indemnity Co. of New York
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 26 Enero 1925
    ...L. R. A. 808; Standard Auto Ins. Ann's v. Neal, 251 S.W. 966. In line with the foregoing is the Alabama decision of Kilby Car & F. Co. v. Ga. Casualty Co., 96 So. 319. See, also, Williams v. Nelson, 117 N.E. Appellant contends "that the policy being written by the company, it must be strong......
  • National Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Collins
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 11 Febrero 1943
    ... ... Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 209 Ala. 110, 95 So ... 355; Kilby Car & Foundry Co. v. Georgia Casualty Co., 209 ... Ala. 356, 96 So. 319; ... ...
  • 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