Ex Parte Woodward Iron Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the CourtSomerville, J.
The demurrer to the complaint was properly overruled, since it contained a distinct allegation of every matter specified by section 28 of the Workmen’s Oompensation Act (Gen. Acts 1919, p. 227).
A strenuous contention is made by counsel for defendant that the special matters of defense set up under subdivision 3 of its answer did not present the issue of “willful misconduct,” and hence that a jury trial of those matters was not authorized by the act, and their submission to the jury was erroneous.
Section 9 of the act provides that comp'ensation shall be paid in every ease of personal injury or…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Citizen's L. H. & P. Co. v. LeeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1913
- McCutchen v. LogginsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1895
- Beatty v. PalmerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1916
- Nickerson's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
- Montg. So. Railway Co. v. SayreSupreme Court of Alabama · 1882
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Ætna Life Insurance v. CarrollSupreme Court of Georgia · 1929
- Walker v. WoodallSupreme Court of Alabama · 1972
- Royals v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1951
- Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. NationsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1938
- Sun Papers, Inc. v. JerrellCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1981
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.