Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. Roussell

Decision Date14 May 1908
Citation46 So. 866,155 Ala. 435
PartiesTENNESSEE COAL, IRON & R. CO. v. ROUSSELL.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from City Court of Birmingham; Charles A. Senn, Judge.

Action by Auguste Roussell against the Tennessee Coal, Iron &amp Railroad Company for damages to real estate, due to refuse matter thrown into a stream from defendant's coal washer and coal mine, and carried by the stream and deposited on plaintiff's land. Judgment for plaintiff for $275, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

The action is for damages to real estate caused by a deposit on the land of refuse and deleterious matter, thrown into a stream from defendant's coal washer and coal mine, and carried by the stream and deposited on plaintiff's land. Defendant interposed the plea of not guilty and the statute of limitations of one year. The third, fourth, and fifth pleas are in the following language:

"(3) For further answer to plaintiff's complaint, defendant says that on, to wit, the 2d day of May, 1901, plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement of arbitration in words and figures substantially as follows: 'State of Alabama, Jefferson County. This agreement of submission to arbitration, entered into this the 2d day of May, 1901, by and between the Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Company party of the first part, and Auguste Roussell, party of the second part, witnesseth: That whereas, the said parties have a controversy between them relating to the amount of damages, if any, suffered, and which will hereafter be suffered, by the party of the second part in his ownership of certain lands on Five Mile creek, described as follows A half acre lot in N.E. 1/4 of S.W. 1/4 of section 22 township 16, range 4 W., in Jefferson county, Ala.--from the present and future operation of coal washers of the party of the first part now or hereafter to be located on said creek or its tributaries; and whereas, the said parties are desirous of settling said controversy by arbitration in accordance with the statutes of Alabama Now, therefore, it is agreed by the parties hereto and they do hereby submit to the arbitration of Martin Henderson, R. O. Studdins, and Ed Phillips the settlement of the amount of damages, if any, to be paid by the party of the first part to the party of the second part in full settlement and compromise of all damage which has been suffered in the past or may be suffered in the future to said above-described land and its owners, both present and future, both from overflow, deposit, and pollution of the water of said creek, or its tributaries, and all other kinds of damage which have been or may be hereafter suffered from said coal-washing operations of the party of the first part as now or hereafter conducted on said Five Mile creek or any of its tributaries; and each party hereby agrees to accept the award of said arbitrators as final between them as to said controversy. The said party of the first part agrees to pay to the said party of the second part the amount so awarded to him by said arbitrators, and the said party of the second part agrees to execute jointly with his wife such release as the party of the first part tenders to it with the amount so awarded, covering the damage as herein set out. Given under our hands this 2d day of May, 1901. For Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. R. Co.: James F. Echols, Agent. August Russell.' And defendant states that in and by the terms of said arbitration agreement plaintiff and defendant agreed to arbitrate the controversy between them relating to the amount of damage, if any, which had been suffered and would thereafter be suffered by plaintiff in the ownership of certain land on Five Mile creek described in said arbitration agreement from the present and future operation of coal washers of defendant then or thereafter to be located on said Five Mile creek or its tributaries. And defendant states that pursuant to and in accordance with said arbitration agreement the arbitrators named in said agreement pursuant to law rendered an award substantially in words and figures as follows: 'State of Alabama, Jefferson County. We, the undersigned, arbitrators in said cause, hereby assess the damages in whole in the sum of $100. Of this amount we assess damages which have been sustained or which may be done in the future by the Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Company in the sum of $50. Witness our hands this 2d day of May, 1901. R. O. Studdins. Martin Henderson. E. J. Phillips.' And defendant states that pursuant to said award it forthwith offered to pay plaintiff the sum of $50 as named in said award, but that plaintiff refused to receive said sum or to abide by said award. And defendant states that it always has been and is still willing to pay said sum of $50, together with the interest thereon from the 2d day of May, 1901, pursuant to said award, but that plaintiff has refused to abide by said award, and has refused to receive the sum of $50 awarded against defendant, and has refused to execute the release of damages stipulated in said award after same was by defendant prepared and tendered to him; and defendant states the land mentioned in said arbitration agreement is the same land for damages to which this suit is brought, and that the cause of action sued upon was embraced in the terms of said arbitration, and the damages herein sued for were covered by said arbitration agreement.

"(4) For further answer to plaintiff's complaint, defendant says that on, to wit, the 2d day of May, 1901, plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement of arbitration in words and figures substantially as follows: [Here follows the same submission and award as is set out in plea 3.] And defendant states that other persons or corporations besides defendant were, at and prior to the said arbitration, engaged in conducting coal-washing operations on Five Mile creek, or the waters tributary thereto, above the lands of plaintiff, and that such other persons or corporations had caused plaintiff damages from overflow, deposit, and pollution of the water of said creek and otherwise by their coal-washing operations, and defendant states that the portion of said award assessing said damages in whole at $100 referred to the entire damage sustained by plaintiff as a result of all coal-washing operations on Five Mile creek, including those carried on by other persons or corporations, as well as plaintiff. And defendant states that pursuant to said award it forthwith offered to pay plaintiff the sum of $50 as named in said award, but that plaintiff refused to receive said sum or to abide by said award. And defendant states that it always has been and is still willing to pay said sum of $50, together with the interest thereon from the 2d day of May, 1901, pursuant to said award, but that plaintiff has refused to abide by said award and has refused to receive the sum of $50 awarded against defendant, and has refused to execute the release of damages stipulated in said award, although same was by defendant prepared and tendered to him; and defendant states the land mentioned in said arbitration agreement is the same land for damages to which this suit is brought, and that the cause of action sued upon was embraced in the terms of said arbitration, and the damages herein sued for were covered by said arbitration agreement.

"(5) For further answer to plaintiff's complaint, defendant says that on, to wit, the 2d day of May, 1901, plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement of arbitration in words and figures substantially as follows: [Here follows the agreement of submission to arbitration as is set out in plea 3.] That whereas, said parties have a controversy between them relating to the amount of damage, if any, suffered and which will hereafter be suffered by the party of the second part in his ownership of certain land on Five Mile creek described as follows: A half acre lot in N.E. 1/4 of S.W. 1/4 of section 22,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Banks v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • June 30, 1921
    ... ... Ex parte Pepper, supra; T. C. I. & R ... R. Co. v. Roussell, 155 Ala. 435, 46 So. 866, 130 Am ... St. Rep. 56; Wood, etc., Co. v ... ...
  • Sapp v. Barenfeld
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • December 6, 1949
    ...for in a submission agreement.' Sturges, Commercial Arbitration and Awards, § 152, pp. 382-383; Tennessee Coal Iron & R. Co. v. Roussell, 155 Ala. 435, 46 So. 866, 130 Am.St.Rep. 56; Acme Lumber Co. v. Ruby, 237 Mich. 314, 316, 211 N.W. 631; Mississippi Cotton Oil Co. v. Buster, 84 Miss. 91......
  • Fuerst v. Eichberger
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • December 17, 1931
    ... ... interpreted in the light thereof. Tennessee Coal, etc., ... Co. v. Roussell, 155 Ala. 435, 436, 46 So. 866, 130 Am ... ...
  • Ex parte City of Mobile
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • January 20, 1949
    ... ... it. Ex parte Pepper, supra; Tennessee Coal Iron & R. Co ... v. Roussell, 155 Ala. 435, 46 So. 866, 130 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT