Kilby Car & Foundry Co. v. Georgia Casualty Co., 7 Div. 379.

• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama
• Writing for the Court: THOMAS, J.
• Citation: 209 Ala. 356,96 So. 319
• Parties: KILBY CAR & FOUNDRY CO. v. GEORGIA CASUALTY CO.
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 379.
• Decision Date: 03 May 1923

96 So. 319

209 Ala. 356

KILBY CAR & FOUNDRY CO.
v.
GEORGIA CASUALTY CO.

7 Div. 379.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 3, 1923

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

Action by the Georgia Casualty Company against the Kilby Car & 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 [96 So. 320.] 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...