City of Birmingham v. Tate

Supreme Court of Alabama

City of Birmingham v. Tate

101 So. 2d 263, 267 Ala. 216, 1958 Ala. LEXIS 311

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMarch 6, 1958

Docket6 Div. 896

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 101 So. 2d 263 (City of Birmingham v. Tate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Birmingham v. Tate, 101 So. 2d 263, 267 Ala. 216, 1958 Ala. LEXIS 311 (Ala. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

COLEMAN, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment denying appellant’s petition to intervene in a suit filed by Loyce A. Tate v. Mrs. Olma W. Macy, et al., to recover damages for personal injury allegedly suffered by Tate as a proximate consequence of the negligent or wanton operation of an automobile on a public street by defendants.

The petition for intervention states that at the time Tate was injured as aforesaid, he was engaged in his duties as a police officer employed by the City of Birmingham; that under the rules and statutes governing Tate’s employment, the City was required to pay him $519.55 salary during the time he was disabled as a result of the accident; and that under its obligation to maintain an efficient police department, the City paid Tate’s hospital and surgical expenses in the amount of $44.10 in order to restore the injured policeman to duty as soon as possible.

The trial court denied the City’s petition to'intervene and that ruling is assigned as error.

This case is due to be and is affirmed on authority of City of Birmingham v. Walker, [217]*217ante, p. 150, 101 So,2d 250, and City of Birmingham v. Trammell, post, p. 245, 101 So.2d 259.

Affirmed.

All the Justices concur except STAKE-LY, J., not sitting.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

COLEMAN, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment denying appellant’s petition to intervene in a suit filed by Loyce A. Tate v. Mrs. Olma W. Macy, et al., to recover damages for personal injury allegedly suffered by Tate as a proximate consequence of the negligent or wanton operation of an automobile on a public street by defendants.

The petition for intervention states that at the time Tate was injured as aforesaid, he was engaged in his duties as a police officer employed by the City of Birmingham; that under the rules and statutes governing Tate’s employment, the City was required to pay him $519.55 salary during the time he was disabled as a result of the accident; and that under its obligation to maintain an efficient police department, the City paid Tate’s hospital and surgical expenses in the amount of $44.10 in order to restore the injured policeman to duty as soon as possible.

The trial court denied the City’s petition to'intervene and that ruling is assigned as error.

This case is due to be and is affirmed on authority of City of Birmingham v. Walker, [217]*217ante, p. 150, 101 So,2d 250, and City of Birmingham v. Trammell, post, p. 245, 101 So.2d 259.

Affirmed.

All the Justices concur except STAKE-LY, J., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 So. 2d 263, 267 Ala. 216, 1958 Ala. LEXIS 311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-birmingham-v-tate-ala-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack