Standard Chemical Co. v. Barbaree
| Decision Date | 18 April 1940 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 101. |
| Citation | 239 Ala. 601,195 So. 892 |
| Parties | STANDARD CHEMICAL CO. v. BARBAREE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied May 23, 1940.
Certiorari to Circuit Court, Pike County; W. L. Parks, Judge.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by W. B. Barbaree against the Standard Chemical Company, to recover compensation on account of injury sustained in course of employment. Judgment awarding compensation, and the employer brings certiorari.
Writ awarded; reversed and remanded.
London & Yancey, Fred G. Koenig, Sr., and Harry B. Cohen, all of Birmingham, for appellant.
John C Walters, of Troy, for appellee.
The appellee, Barbaree, as employe of the Standard Chemical Company, sustained an injury resulting in paralysis of his arm. He brought a suit under Section 7578 of the Code of 1923 and recovered a judgment for the sum provided under the Workmen's Compensation Act. This suit was defended by the employer and was, therefore, an adversary proceeding and not a settlement as dealt with by Section 7574 of the Code. The judgment was rendered in 1934, for weekly payments to run two hundred weeks. The employe, Barbaree, then filed another petition or complaint in 1938 against this same Standard Chemical Company which, as appears from the pleading later disclosed, was based upon the identical injury for which he obtained the first judgment in 1934. The defendant interposed, among others, a plea of res judicata, which to all intents and purposes was sufficient as no demurrer was interposed. The plaintiff relied upon a replication thereto setting up as a bar, by way of an estoppel, a previous promise or agreement.
This replication appellee's counsel contends is but an estoppel and not a contract or agreement. We may concede it is a plea of estoppel, yet it is predicated upon an oral promise or agreement not to be performed within a year, which is forbidden by the Statute of Frauds, and also forbidden by Circuit Court Rule 14, which reads as follows: "No private agreement or consent between parties or their attorneys, relating to the proceedings in any cause, shall be alleged or suggested by either against the other, unless the same be in writing and signed by the party to be bound thereby." Kirkland v. C. D. Franke & Co., 207 Ala. 377, 92 So. 472; Brunnier v. Hill, 204 Ala 403, 85 So. 691, and cases there cited. See especially the case of Norman v. Burns, 67 Ala. 248, for a discussion of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Auto Mut. Ins. Co. v. McIntyre
...45, 50-51 (Ala.1980), and that a contract prohibited by public policy cannot be given validity by estoppel. Standard Chemical Co. v. Barbaree, 239 Ala. 601, 195 So. 892, 893 (1940), but Burnham points out that it has apparently not been decided whether a public policy constraint, as opposed......
-
Ex parte Rice, 5 Div. 538
...by that statement to say that thereby the defendants are estopped from setting up the illegality of the contract. Standard Chemical Co. v. Barbaree, 239 Ala. 601, 195 So. 892; Ellis v. Batson, 177 Ala. 313, 58 So. Apparently, it is only when the defendants have determined that it is not to ......
-
Spencer v. Spencer
...691; Kirkland v. C. D. Franke & Co., 207 Ala. 377, 92 So. 472; Choctaw Bank v. Dearmon, 223 Ala. 144, 134 So. 648; Standard Chemical Co. v. Barbaree, 239 Ala. 601, 195 So. 892. The only case we find in this State in which that principle was not applied is Evans v. Wilhite, 176 Ala. 287, 58 ......
-
Moving Picture Mach. Operators Local No. 236 v. Cayson
...a contract, validity cannot be given to it by estoppel if it is prohibited by law or is against public policy. Standard Chemical Co. v. Barbaree, 239 Ala. 601, 602, 195 So. 892. Because the instant contract as applied by respondents violated public policy, complainant could not give the con......