
    Oglesby v. Melcroft Coal Company.
    (Decided June 10, 1927.)
    Appeal from Harlan Circuit Court.
    1. Judgment. — Satisfaction of judgment against telephone company alone in an action for compensation for entire injury discharged both coal company, which maintained electric wires leading from utility company’s substation, and the utility company, from liability for injury caused by telephone wires falling on electric wires, though action had been dismissed before judgment without prejudice as to them.
    
      2. Judgment. — Satisfaction of judgment procured against one of several joint tort-feasors in an action for the entire injury discharges the others, since law does not permit double recovery for a joint wrong.
    G. G. RAWLINGS for appellant.
    SAMPSON & SAMPSON for appellee.
   Opinion op the Court by

Chief Justice Clay—

Affirming.

The Melcroft Coal Company owns and operates a •coal mine in Piarían county. The Kentucky Utilities Company owns and controls electric wires leading to< a substation. Prom that point the electricity is conveyed to the mine on wires maintained and operated by the coal company. A few feet above the electric wires are telephone wires maintained and operated by the Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Company. The telephone wires fell on the electric wires and became charged with electricity. While walking along the street in the coal company’s' camp Walter Oglesby, an employee of the coal company, came in contact with one of the telephone wires and was injured. Charging that his injuries were caused by the negligence of the telephone company, the Kentucky Utilities Company and tbe coal company, Oglesby sued to recover damages. Issue was joined by all tbe defendants, but as to the coal company and tbe Kentucky Utilities 'Company tbe action was dismissed without prejudice. The case then went to trial as against tbe telephone company and resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of Oglesby for $1,500.00, and tbe judgment was paid on October 28, 1926.

On October 29, 1926, Oglesby brought this action against tbe Melcroft Coal Company to recover for tbe same injuries. In addition to other defenses tbe coal company relied upon tbe proceedings in tbe other alction and alleged that tbe judgment recovered in that action was for the'same injuries and that tbe judgment was paid and fully satisfied. Demurrers to each of the. paragraphs of tbe answer were overruled, and, Oglesby having declined to plead further, tbe petition was dismissed. Oglesby appeals.

It was not pleaded, nor can it be contended, that tbe payment of tbe judgment was in part satisfaction of tbe injuries received by appellant. On tbe contrary, be sued tbe telephone company, for bis entire injury and was awarded compensation on that basis. Tbe law does not permit a double recovery for a joint wrong. One satisfaction is all that tbe injured party is entitled to. Though be may sue one or all of several joint tort-feasors, yet if be recovers a judgment against one of them and obtains satisfaction, that operates as a discharge of tbe others. Black on Judgments, section 782. Sodousky v. McGee, 4 J. J. Marsh. 269 ; United Society of Shakers v. Underwood, 11 Bush, 265, 21 Am. Rep. 214; Louisville & Evansville Mail Co. v. Barnes, 117 Ky. 860, 79 S. W. 262, 25 Ky. Law Rep. 2036, 64 L. R. A. 574, 111 Am. St. Rep. 273; Vandiver v. Pollak, 107 Ala. 547, 19 So. 180, 54 Am. St. Rep. 118; Mitchell v. Libbey, 33 Me. 74; Berkley v. Wilson, 87 Md. 219, 39 A. 502; Luce v. Dexter, 135 Mass. 23; Grimes v. Williams, 113 Mich. 450, 71 N. W. 835; Snyder v. Witt, 99 Tenn. 618, 42 S. W. 441; Blackman v. Simpson, 120 Mich. 377, 79 N. W. 573, 58 L. R. A. 410. This doctrine was followed and applied in Thomas’ Adm’r v. Maysville Street Railway & Transfer Co., 136 Ky. 446, 124 S. W. 398, 136 Am. St. Rep. 267, wherein it was held that where plaintiff recovered judgment against two joint tort-feasors and elected to collect his judgment against one of them, his cause of action was satisfied and the other tort-feasor was released, though the judgment against him was larger than the one paid. It follows that the paragraph of the answer pleading the payment of the judgment against the telephone -company presented a good defense, and that the demurrer thereto was properly overruled.

Judgment affirmed.  