Southern Ry. Co. v. Kendall

• Decision Date: 27 April 1972
• Docket Number: 3 Div. 492
• Citation: 288 Ala. 430,261 So.2d 752
• Parties: SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY and Alabama Public Service Commission v. R. G. KENDALL, Jr., as Director of Department of Industrial Relations.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 752

261 So.2d 752

288 Ala. 430

SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY and Alabama Public Service Commission v. R. G. KENDALL, Jr., as Director of Department of Industrial Relations.

3 Div. 492.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

April 27, 1972.

Douglas Arant and Thad G. Long, Birmingham, for appellant Southern railway co.

Carl L. Evans, Montgomery for appellant Alabama Public Service Comm.

J. Eugene Foster and Richard S. Brooks, Montgomery, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The Director of the Department of Industrial Relations initiated the proceedings in this case by filing a bill for injunction and declaratory judgment against Southern Railway Company, asking that the court enjoin Southern from refusing to allow the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations or his representatives to make inspections of Southern's places of employment throughout the State of Alabama and that the court enter a decree declaring that the Department of Industrial Relations had such authority under the statutes of this state. The Alabama Public Service Commission intervened.

After a hearing on the application for temporary injunction, the court entered an order granting said temporary injunction. At a later proceeding the trial court vacated its temporary injunction order.

Subsequently, both appellants filed demurrers to the bill of complaint as amended. The trial court overruled said demurrers and entered a decree declaring the rights of the complaint. Said decree stated in part:

'IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the amended demurrers of the respondent, Southern Railway Company, and the demurrer of the intervenor, Alabama Public Service Commission, to the complaint as last amended be, and are, hereby overruled.

'There being no factual controversies presented by the bill of complaint, but simply a question of law only, the Court deems it expedient that a decision be rendered resolving the entire controversy and the Court therefore proceeds to decide the matter of demurrer.

'IT IS, THEREFORE, FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court as follows:

'(1) That it was the intention of the legislature to vest in the Alabama Department of Industrial Relations the authority and jurisdiction to administer laws relating to working conditions and matters of safety and health in places of employment and to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to effectuate such intention. Accordingly, the Court finds there is no statutory conflict between Sections 3 and 12, Title 26, and Sections 110 and 17, Title 48, Code of Alabama 1940 (Recompiled 1958).'

From this final decree appellants appeal.

Appellants contend that the trial court erred in overruling the demurrers to the amended bill of complaint. We have held on several occasions that if the bill of complaint states the substance of a bona fide justiciable controversy which should be settled, this states a cause of action for declaratory judgment and the demurrer thereto should be overruled. City of Mobile v. Wooley, 278 Ala. 652, 180 So.2d 251; Metzger Bros., Inc. v. Royal Indemnity Co., 274 Ala. 643, 151 So.2d 244; Orkin Exterminating Co. of North Alabama v. Krawcheck, 271 Ala. 305, 123 So.2d 149.

The bill of complaint avers that there is an actual justiciable controversy between respondent and complaint concerning the interpretation of the statutes noted in the foregoing portion of the decree and the legal relations of the parties thereunder. It is our view that the bill of complaint does state a case for declaratory judgment under Tit. 7, § 156 et seq., Code of Ala.1940, and the demurrers were properly overruled.

Appellants further contend the trial court erred in entering a final decree before an answer was filed or any evidence introduced.

This court has repeatedly held where a bill for declaratory judgment shows a bona fide...