Summit Coal Co. v. Walker

107 So. 905, 214 Ala. 332, 1926 Ala. LEXIS 248

• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama
• Decided: March 25, 1926
• Docket: 6 Div. 496.
• Status: Published

Opinion

THOMAS, J.

The Compensation Act (Code 1923, §§ 7534r-7597) has been liberally construed in the meeting of the evils sought to be remedied. Ex parte W. T. Smith Lbr. Co., 90 So. 807, 206 Ala. 485; Ex parte L. & N. R. Co., 94 So. 289, 208 Ala. 216; Ex parte Central Iron & Coal Co., 95 So. 472, 209 Ala. 22; Ex parte Majestic Coal Co., 93 So. 728, 208 Ala. S6.

If there is any reasonable view of the evidence that will support the conclusion announced by the trial court, the finding and judgment will not be disturbed. Ex parte De Bardeleben Coal Co., 103 So. 548, 212 Ala. 533; Ex parte Sloss-Sheffield S. & I. Co., 92 So. 458, 207 Ala. 219. This is the limited scope of the review by certiorari, which cannot be made to serve the purpose of an appeal. Ex parte Nunnally Co., 95 So. 343, 209 Ala. 82. Where there is any legal evidence to support the finding, it is conclusive. Ex parte L. & N. R. Co., 94 So. 289, 208 Ala. 216; Ex parte Nunnally Co., supra; Ex parte Coleman, 100 So. 114, 211 Ala. 248; Ex parte De Bardeleben Coal Co., 103 So. 548, 212 Ala. 533. The evidence heard orally by the'court and set out by tbe judge is sufficient to support. bis finding of facts and judgment thereon. We have treated the facts as set out and preceding the finding and judgment as a finding of fact, and not as a bill of exceptions. It is not sufficient as a bill of exceptions, and the mere incorporation of tbe same in tbe record does not constitute it a bill of exceptions. Code 1923, § 6435; Rainey v. Ridge-way, 43 So. 843, 151 Ala. 532; E. S., etc., Co. v. Williams, 104 So. 28, 213 Ala. 115; Chapman v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 104 So. 517, 213 Ala. 255.

Tbe record recites:

“After hearing said testimony, the court took same under advice until this date, and finds from the evidence the following facts.”

The- testimony has been preceded by tbe words:

“The above-styled case came on for hearing before Hon. R. L. Blanton, one of the judges of said court, on the 13th day of April, 1925, ánd the following testimony was introduced.”

It is not presented to and signed by the trial judge as a bill of exceptions. It was treated by appellant’s counsel, not as a bill of exceptions, but as a part of the finding of fact. Tbe court found tbe evidence that discharged the plaintiff’s burden of proof. Ex parte Todd S. & D. D. Co., 103 So. 447, 212 Ala. 477.

A provision of tbe statute (Code 1923, § 7567) is as follows:

“In all death claims where the cause of death is obscure or is disputed, any interested party may require an autopsy, the cost of which is to be borne by the party demanding the same.”

This provision may be enforced in.and of a pending cause, and not be made a condition precedent to tbe bringing of a suit founded on tbe pertinent facts. A court having jurisdiction, on due application and.notice, may exercise its judicial discretion as to a continuance of tbe proceeding or trial pending, compliance with its order in tbe premises, and may compel tbe obedience and enforcement of tbe statute in tbe respects indicated. The judge granting tbe order bad jurisdiction as a circuit judge throughout tbe state. Phillips v. Morrow, 104 So. 260, 213 Ala. 139, 40 A. L. R. 285. The fact that it was not enforced presents no defense to judgment on tbe facts. Tbe whole matter was before tbe trial court.

The writ is deniecl.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE and BOELDIN, JJ., concur.