Moore v. Louisville Hydro-Electric Co.
| Decision Date | 23 October 1928 |
| Citation | 226 Ky. 20,10 S.W.2d 466 |
| Parties | MOORE v. LOUISVILLE HYDRO-ELECTRIC CO. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
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.
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 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Washington Terminal Co. v. Boswell
...a "special statutory 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.......
-
State ex rel. Kansas City Bridge Co. v. Terte
... ... Corp., 258 N.W. 470; U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Savoy ... Grill, 1 N.E.2d 946; Moore v. Louisville ... Hydro-Electric Co., 10 S.W.2d 466; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. State Highway ... ...
-
Jefferson County ex rel. Coleman v. Chilton
... ... [33 S.W.2d 602] ... Harris ... W. Coleman, of Louisville, for Jefferson County ... Benjamin ... F. Washer and Walter Lapp, both of ... 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, ... ...
-
Simmons v. Clark Const. Co.
...within the 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......