Moore v. Louisville Hydro-Electric Co.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
Writing for the CourtLOGAN, J.
Citation226 Ky. 20,10 S.W.2d 466
Decision Date23 October 1928
PartiesMOORE v. LOUISVILLE HYDRO-ELECTRIC CO.

10 S.W.2d 466

226 Ky. 20

MOORE
v.
LOUISVILLE HYDRO-ELECTRIC CO.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

October 23, 1928


Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Common Pleas Branch, Fourth Division.

Petition under the Declaratory Judgment Act by James Moore against the Louisville Hydro-Electric Company. From a judgment dismissing the petition, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Robert Hubbard, of Louisville, for appellant.

Fred Forcht and Eli Berry, both of Louisville, for appellee.

LOGAN, J.

The appellant was injured while working for the appellee, and on June 7, 1926, he filed his application for compensation before the Workmen's Compensation Board for hernia and other injuries. He claims that he was at all times willing to subject himself to an operation for hernia, but he did not have funds to pay the expense of such an operation, and that the appellee would not cause the operation to be performed at its expense; that the board allowed him compensation for other injuries, but dismissed his claim for hernia; that he thereafter appealed to the Jefferson circuit court, where the award of the board was approved, but, upon an appeal to this court, the judgment of the Jefferson circuit court was reversed on March 23, 1928 [223 Ky. 710, 4 S.W.2d 701]; and that it was held by this court that he was entitled to compensation for hernia. He says there has arisen an actual controversy between him and the appellee since the reversal of the judgment of the Jefferson circuit court as to what period of time he is entitled to compensation for hernia. He contends that he is entitled to compensation from June 10, 1926, the date on which he was awarded compensation for other injuries, until he shall have been operated on and shall have fully recovered; whereas the appellee contends that he is only entitled to compensation for hernia from the time he is operated on until he has recovered from the operation.

He filed a petition under the provisions of the Declaratory Judgment Act (section 639a1 to 639a12, Civil Code) in which the foregoing facts are alleged.

The purpose of his petition asking for a declaration of rights is to have this court determine the time for which he shall be allowed compensation for hernia. The appellee filed a special demurrer to the petition, which was sustained, with the result that this appeal has been prosecuted from the judgment of the lower court.

It has been often written that the Workmen's Compensation Law is in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Washington Terminal Co. v. Boswell, No. 7465.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • November 18, 1941
    ...method" and a "statutory court prescribed" is meant an exclusive procedure or court. See Moore v. Louisville Hydro-Electric Co., 1928 226 Ky. 20, 10 S.W.2d 466; Mayor of Devonport v. Tozer, 1902, 2 Chancery 182; Smeeton v. Attorney-General, 1920, 1 Chancery 85; Flint v. Attorney-General, 19......
  • Northern States Contracting Co. v. Swope
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • December 17, 1937
    ...13 A.L.R. 524; Ashland Iron & Mining Co. v. McDaniel's Dependents, 202 Ky. 19, 258 S.W. 943; Moore v. Louisville Hydro-Electric Company, 226 Ky. 20, 10 S.W.2d 466. Not unlike are the rulings pertaining to the necessity of grievances being submitted originally to the Railroad Commission, Pub......
  • Stearns Coal & Lumber Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Com'n of Kentucky
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • January 24, 1941
    ...157 Ky. 393, 163 S.W. 201. Furthermore, an action for a declaration of rights was not a proper remedy. Moore v. Hydro-Electric Co., 226 Ky. 20, 10 S.W.2d 466. Nor was appellant entitled to sue for the benefit of all employers affected by the act, since, (1) There was no community of interes......
  • Stephens v. Justice
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • October 26, 1928
    ...and the west line of the Justice tract was described as bounded by "Joshua Damron's land." These two tracts of land were then, [10 S.W.2d 466] and had been for more than a quarter of a century divided by a rail fence, and Justice went into possession and thereafter continued in possession o......
21 cases
  • Washington Terminal Co. v. Boswell, No. 7465.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • November 18, 1941
    ...method" and a "statutory court prescribed" is meant an exclusive procedure or court. See Moore v. Louisville Hydro-Electric Co., 1928 226 Ky. 20, 10 S.W.2d 466; Mayor of Devonport v. Tozer, 1902, 2 Chancery 182; Smeeton v. Attorney-General, 1920, 1 Chancery 85; Flint v. Attorney-General, 19......
  • Jefferson County ex rel. Coleman v. Chilton
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • December 16, 1930
    ...be abrogated, prejudged, or rendered futile. Proctor v. Avondale H. Co., 200 Ky. 447, 255 S.W. 81; Moore v. Louisville Hydro-Electric Co., 226 Ky. 20, 10 S.W.2d 466; Back's Guardian v. Bardo, 234 Ky. 211, 27 S.W.2d 960. In Shearer et al. v. Backer et al., 207 Ky. 455, 269 S.W. 543, 545, we ......
  • Simmons v. Clark Const. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • March 29, 1968
    ...purview of the Act. Ashland Iron & Mining Co. v. McDaniel's Dependents, 202 Ky. 19, 258 S.W. 943; Moore v. Louisville Hydro-Electric Co., 226 Ky. 20, 10 S.W.2d 466. The purposes of the Act would be defeated if independent actions to recover damages for injuries or death caused by a compensa......
  • Travelers Ins. Co. v. Sneddon, No. 49234
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • December 17, 1957
    ...a workmen's compensation law include Haggard v. Industrial Comm., 71 Ariz. 91, 223 P.2d 915, 919; Moore v. Louisville Hydro-Electric Co., 226 Ky. 20, 10 S.W.2d 466; United States F. & G. Co. v. Thirion, 123 N.J.L. 29, 7 A.2d 863, Haggard v. Industrial Comm., supra, states: 'The first questi......
  • 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