Southern Ry. Co. v. Stonewall Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 18 November 1909
• Citation: 163 Ala. 161,50 So. 940
• Parties: SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. STONEWALL INS. CO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

50 So. 940

163 Ala. 161

SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. STONEWALL INS. CO.

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 18, 1909

Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; Samuel B. Browne, Judge.

Action by the Stonewall Insurance Company against the Southern Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Bestor Bestor & Young, for appellant.

Joel W Goldsby and Gregory L. & H. T. Smith, for appellee.

MAYFIELD J.

This was an action by the appellee insurance company against appellant (defendant) railroad company to recover damages for the destruction of a warehouse and a lot of cotton alleged to have been ignited by fire emitted from defendant's locomotive. The property destroyed was insured by appellee to various owners, against loss by fire. After the loss, the insurance company paid the losses to the insured, in accordance with its contracts, taking assignment and transfer of their respective claims, and thereupon sued appellant, in its own name, for negligently causing the loss by fire. The defendant demurred to the complaint, but its demurrers were stricken from the file, on plaintiff's motion, because not filed within time. Trial was had, which resulted in a verdict for plaintiff for one cent. This verdict and judgment was set aside, on plaintiff's motion, and a new trial awarded. From the judgment and order setting aside the verdict and awarding a new trial, defendant appeals.

It is insisted that the order setting aside the verdict was error for that the plaintiff could not maintain the action; that the statute (section 5159 of the Code of 1907) which authorizes the transfer and assignment of claims against railroad companies and suits thereon in the names of the successive assignees, is unconstitutional and void, because a discrimination against railroad companies. It is unnecessary to decide this question on this appeal, for the reason that without any statute, the insurance company, on paying the insurance for the property insured and alleged to have been tortiously destroyed by the railroad company, would be subrogated to the rights of the insured or owners of the property, against the railroad company, if any there were, to make good its loss, and could certainly sue in its own name or in the name of the insured, for its use. The insurance company, in either case, would be the real party plaintiff; and if it should be conceded that the action should have been in the names...