State Board of Adjustment v. State ex rel. Sossaman

• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: KNIGHT, Justice.
• Citation: State Board of Adjustment v. State ex rel. Sossaman, 165 So. 761, 231 Ala. 520 (Ala. 1936)
• Decision Date: 13 February 1936
• Docket Number: 3 Div. 162
• Parties: STATE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT et al. v. STATE ex rel. SOSSAMAN.

165 So. 761

231 Ala. 520

STATE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT et al. v. STATE ex rel. SOSSAMAN.

3 Div. 162

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 13, 1936

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Walter B. Jones Judge.

Petition of the State of Alabama, on the relation of George A Sossaman, as Administrator of the estate of Leo Lambele deceased, for mandamus to the State Board of Adjustment and the members thereof. From a judgment granting the writ respondents appeal.

Affirmed.

Files Crenshaw, Jr., of Montgomery, for appellants.

Geo. A. Sossaman, of Mobile, for appellee.

KNIGHT Justice.

The proceedings in this cause were instituted by the state of Alabama, on relation of George A. Sossaman, as administrator of the estate of Leo Lambele, deceased, seeking by mandamus to require the state board of adjustment to hear, consider, and determine, "upon its merits," a claim filed by said Sossaman, as administrator of the estate of Leo Lambele, deceased, against the state of Alabama.

It appears from the petition that the said Lambele met his death by coming into contact with "an electrified rail upon the property of the Alabama State Docks Commission in Mobile, Alabama."

In a suit against the Alabama State Docks Commission, there was judgment in favor of the personal representative of said decedent, but this court, on appeal, reversed the judgment of the circuit court of Mobile, and in which we held that the Alabama State Docks Commission, being an agency of the state, could not be sued.

At the regular session of 1935 Legislature of Alabama, an act was passed, and approved by the Governor on September 14, 1935, creating a state board of adjustment. By this act the duties, powers, and jurisdiction of the board were clearly and definitely defined. General Acts 1935, p. 1164.

Section 2 of the act provides, in part, that the board of adjustment "shall have power and it shall be its duty to hear and consider all claims for damages to the persons or property growing out of any injury done to either persons or property by any of the agencies of the State of Alabama; also, to hear and consider any claim for personal injuries or death of any employee of the State of Alabama, or its commissions, boards, agencies or institutions arising out of the course of his employment, or sustained while engaged in the business of the State of Alabama or any of its boards, institutions, agencies or commissions, and also any claim for personal injuries or death of any convict. The jurisdiction here granted shall include claims for past and future injury to persons or property, or death." (Italics supplied.)

Section 8 of the act provides: "All the provisions of this Act shall apply to claims for damages to persons or property which have accrued or which are now pending or which may hereafter arise." (Italics supplied.)

Section 11 of the act, so far as here pertinent, is as follows: "Said board may prescribe such forms and adopt such rules of evidence and procedure as it may deem necessary or proper, not inconsistent with this Act." *** (Italics supplied.)

It is also provided in section 2 of the act: "When claims are properly prepared and presented to the board, and after ascertaining the facts in the case, the board is directed to determine the amount of the injury, death or disability, or other injury arising from contract or business, and to fix the damages, using as its guide the ordinary rules af negligence and workmen's compensation laid down by the courts and the moral obligation of the State of Alabama and to decree and find the person entitled to payment and the amount, if any, which should be paid, and any other facts necessary for a proper adjustment of claims."

Under the supposed authority conferred upon it by the act, the board of adjustment made and promulgated certain rules, among them rule X, which, so far as it affects the case, we quote: "(a) The board will not hear or consider any claim against the State which claim as between citizens of the State could not be enforced in a court of law or equity. (b) The board will not consider any claim, which claim is not included or embraced in a bill introduced in the 1935 session of the Legislature, or, which if introduced, failed of passage and approval in any Legislature prior to 1935. (c) Claims included or embraced in bills introduced in the 1935 session of the Legislature which failed of passage by reason of an adverse vote in either House or which received adverse action by a committee of either House. (e) Claims where the cause of action arose before 1931."

It would appear from the sworn petition for mandamus, the answer of the respondents, and from the facts stated in the bill of exceptions, that the claim filed with the state board of adjustment presented a case for the consideration and determination of the board on its merits, but the board declined to hear and consider the claim because of rule 10, previously adopted by the board. In other words, the claim was treated as being barred by the time limitation fixed by the board in rule 10.

The court, on submission of the cause, ordered mandamus to issue to respondents as prayed for, directing and commanding said board, and the individual...