Webb v. J.G. White Engineering Corporation
Decision Date | 14 May 1920 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 226 |
Citation | 204 Ala. 429,85 So. 729 |
Parties | WEBB v. J.G. WHITE ENGINEERING CORPORATION et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 30, 1920
Appeal from Circuit Court, Colbert County; C.P. Almon, Judge.
Action by Verdo Toy Webb against the J.G. White Engineering Corporation and another for damages for personal injuries. Judgment for the defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
E.W Godbey, of Decatur, for appellant.
Andrews & Peach, of Sheffield, for appellees.
The suit was for personal injury sustained on a government reservation. Defendants filed pleas 1 to 5, inclusive demurrers as to pleas 1 and 5 were overruled, and plaintiff took a nonsuit by reason of this adverse ruling of the court. Paterson & Edey Lumber Co. v. Bank of Mobile, 84 So 721. The sufficiency of said pleas, against the grounds of demurrer assigned, is challenged by the appeal.
Plaintiff averred that he was employed to work by the J.G. White Engineering Corporation (defendant); that by virtue of his contract and as a part of his compensation said employer engaged to furnish his lodging, and assigned him to a certain place, known as a "bunkhouse," at Sheffield, Ala controlled by the defendant Air Nitrates Corporation. It is averred that "it became the duty of the defendant to use reasonable effort and diligence to keep said premises in a reasonably safe condition with respect to fire," and that as to this "defendants conducted themselves carelessly and negligently and indifferently, and were so guilty of a lack of ordinary care and precautions with respect to said premises that by reason of such remissness" said house was a "fire trap" and dangerous, and on or about the night of June 18, 1918, by reason of the inflammable condition of the premises, and while plaintiff was so lodging, under the aforesaid arrangement and condition, the premises caught fire, owing to such negligence of defendant, which fire was unextinguished, and, by reason of such negligence, enveloped plaintiff, and severely burned and stifled him before, by reasonable effort, he could escape or be rescued therefrom. The plaintiff catalogues his injuries, some of which are averred to be of a permanent nature; and his damages averred are for loss of time, wages, and salary, expenses incurred for medical and surgical attention and professional nursing.
Pleas 1 to 5, inclusive, in bar of the prosecution of this suit, challenge the jurisdiction of the court for that the cause of action declared on occurred on the plant site of United States Nitrate Plant No. 2; that said land was purchased by the United States by the consent of the Legislature of the state of Alabama, for the erection thereon of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, or other needful buildings within the contemplation of article 1, section 8, paragraph 17, of the Constitution of the United States. Of the pleas in question, plea 5 best states the defense, which is as follows:
Plaintiff interposed demurrers to the several pleas, which were overruled. All matters set out in the pleas are taken as true.
Appropriate provisions of section 8, article 1, of the Constitution of the United States, are:
The act of Congress, approved June 3, 1916, sought to be embodied in plea 5, contained the following:
U.S.Comp.Stat.1916, vol. 4, § 3110b, p. 4358.
It must be admitted that the United States Nitrate Plant No. 2 was, on the date of this plaintiff's injury (June 18, 1918), a federal reservation upon which Congress had the right to assume and exercise exclusive legislation, and as such reservation was subject to the legislation by the state of Alabama making provision for cession of jurisdiction by sections 898 and 899 of the Code. The question then is whether Congress had assumed jurisdiction over said territory and legislated so as to exclude plaintiff from a remedy under the state statutes, or given him instead a remedy for his alleged injuries and wrongs on which the suit may be maintained in a federal forum. It is not questioned that the general rule is that where Congress may legislate on a given subject and has done so, criminally or civilly, such legislation is the supreme law of the land. See authorities collected in L. & N.R. Co. v. State, 16 Ala.App. 199, 76 So. 505, 510-514.
In ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moon v. Hines
... ... 579, 42 So. 114; Cox v. Trustees, etc., supra; White v ... Ala. Insane Hospital, 138 Ala. 479, 35 So. 454 ... Hines, Dir. Gen., v. Dahn ... (C.C.A.) 267 F. 105; Webb v. White Eng. Corp., ... 85 So. 729 ... [87 So. 608.] ... ...
-
Crim v. Louisville & N.R. Co.
... ... that official's and defendant corporation's due ... objections and exceptions and the overruling of ... Mills Co. v. Jones, 204 Ala. 59, 85 So. 719; Webb v ... White Eng. Corp., 204 Ala. 429, 85 So. 729; Ex ... ...
-
Hodge v. Joy
... ... C ... v. Bromberg, 141 Ala. 258, 282, 37 So. 395; Webb v ... White Eng. Corp., 204 Ala. 429, 85 So. 729; Moon ... the Anniston Hotel Company, a corporation, which had leased ... the property to Scoville, Stubbs & ... ...
-
Adams v. Londeree
...891, 47 L.R.A.,N.S., 1031, decided in 1913; Commonwealth v. King, 252 Ky. 699, 68 S.W.2d 45, decided in 1934; Webb v. J. G. White Engineering Corporation, 204 Ala. 429, 85 So. 729, decided in 1920; Concessions Company v. Morris, 109 Wash. 46, 186 P. 655, decided in 1919; State ex rel. Jones......