From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wilson v. Birmingham Electric Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama
May 30, 1929
219 Ala. 436 (Ala. 1929)

Opinion

6 Div. 181.

March 28, 1929. Rehearing Denied May 30, 1929.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; John Denson, Judge.

Charles A. Calhoun, of Birmingham, for appellant.

The ceremonial marriage between appellant and the deceased being established, she was entitled to compensation as his total dependent wife. 38 C. J. 1321; Bell v. Bell, 196 Ala. 465, 71 So. 465; Ex parte Young, 211 Ala. 508, 101 So. 51; Ex parte Thomas, 209 Ala. 276, 96 So. 233; Williams v. Wilson, 210 Ala. 289, 97 So. 911; Pigford v. Ladner, 147 Miss. 822, 112 So. 785; Kyser v. McGlinn, 207 Ala. 82, 92 So. 13. The act was not intended to cover minor children who had lived away from their parent for ten years or more after his separation from their mother, and whom he had never voluntarily supported after the separation. Code 1923, §§ 7552 (b), 7553, 7554; Gulf States S. Co. v. Griffin, 214 Ala. 126, 106 So. 898; Johnson v. Republic I. S. Co., 212 Ala. 149, 102 So. 44; Ex parte Gude Co., 213 Ala. 584, 105 So. 657.

Joseph P. Mudd, of Birmingham, for appellee.

Brief of counsel did not reach the Reporter.

Mullins Jenkins, of Birmingham, for claimants.

The minor children were dependents of their deceased father, and compensation was properly awarded to them. Code 1923, § 7552; Ex parte Cline, 213 Ala. 599, 105 So. 686.


Caleb Wilson came to his death by accident while in the employ of appellee. Appellant, alleging that she was his widow, filed her claim for compensation under the Elective Compensation Law, section 7543 et seq. of the Code of 1923. Ada Wilson intervened on behalf of herself and two minor children, alleging that she was the widow, and the children were the children of deceased employé. The court's decree awarded compensation to the children, and denied to both women any part of it.

Under repeated decisions of this court, if there was any evidence going to sustain the decree in the form in which it was rendered, it will be affirmed on appeal or application for certiorari to this court. Ex parte Sloss-Sheffield Co., 207 Ala. 219, 92 So. 458; Ex parte Louisville Nashville R. Co., 208 Ala. 216, 94 So. 289; Hardisty v. Woodward Iron Co., 214 Ala. 256, 107 So. 837; Martin v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel Iron Co., 216 Ala. 500, 113 So. 578. We are of opinion, certainly, that there was evidence to support the decree in the trial court, and, indeed, that the great, if not the uncontradicted, weight of the evidence justified and required that decree. Appellant Ola Wilson was not entitled to compensation on account of the death of Caleb, because, though she was living with him at the time as man and wife, both had spouses by former marriages which had never been, so far as the evidence showed, dissolved by either death or divorce. Nor was Ada entitled, because, without a dissolution of her marriage with Caleb, she had taken another husband, and it conclusively appeared that at the time of the death of Caleb she was living apart from him, and that he had not for years contributed to her support. Code, § 7552. But the undisputed minor children of Caleb and Ada were entitled to compensation under the law. Code, § 7552, as construed in Ex parte Cline, 213 Ala. 599, 600, 105 So. 686. The decree under review was written in agreement with the views here expressed.

It is affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and BROWN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Wilson v. Birmingham Electric Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama
May 30, 1929
219 Ala. 436 (Ala. 1929)
Case details for

Wilson v. Birmingham Electric Co.

Case Details

Full title:WILSON v. BIRMINGHAM ELECTRIC CO

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: May 30, 1929

Citations

219 Ala. 436 (Ala. 1929)
122 So. 411

Citing Cases

Hunt v. United States Steel Corp.

Williams v. Witherspoon, 171 Ala. 559, 55 So. 132; Moore v. Terry, 220 Ala. 47, 124 So. 80. The words "child"…

Weeks v. C.L. Dickert Lumber Company

Prestwood Prestwood, Andalusia, for appellees. If the trial judge's finding of facts in a compensation case…