Title: Jones v. Jones
Citation: 355 So. 2d 354
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: January 27, 1978

355 So. 2d 354 (1978)
Mary Alice JONES
v.
Bobby Ray JONES.
77-16.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
January 27, 1978.
N. J. Cervera of Cervera &amp; Folmar, Thad Yancey, Jr., Troy, for appellant.
Oliver W. Brantley of Brantley &amp; Calhoun, J. B. Wiley of Wiley &amp; Wiley, Troy, for appellee.
SHORES, Justice.
Appellant and appellee are divorced parents of three children who were killed in an automobile accident while passengers in a car owned and operated by an uninsured motorist. Under the divorce decree, the father had custody of two of the deceased children; and the mother had custody of the other one. The father owned two automobiles, insured respectively by State Farm Insurance Company and Farm Bureau Insurance Company.
This action was brought by the father against State Farm and Farm Bureau under the uninsured motorist provisions in his *355 policies. Both companies admitted liability up to the policy limits for the two children living with their father. The insurers then joined the mother as an additional party in an interpleader action. Both father and mother filed motions for summary judgment, the mother claiming one-half of the funds paid into court. No facts are disputed. The court granted the father's motion and the mother appealed.
The central issue is the mother's claim to a share in the funds. Title 7, §§ 118 and 119, Code of Alabama 1940 (Now, §§ 6-5-390 and 391, 1975 Code), provide:
The mother argues that any recovery under § 119 should be for the benefit of both parents and, in the alternative, that § 119 is unconstitutional because it discriminates on the basis of sex.
In Peoples v. Seamon, 249 Ala. 284, 287, 31 So. 2d 88, 89 (1947), this court held:
As recently as 1970, the holding of Peoples v. Seamon, supra, was followed in Adkison v. Adkison, 286 Ala. 306, 239 So. 2d 562 (1970). The appellant concedes that Peoples and its progeny are contrary to the position which she takes, but argues that those cases should be overruled and a rule established which would permit parents of minor children negligently killed to share in the proceeds of any recovery based upon such negligence. We are not free to adopt such a rule. The language of the legislation supports the construction heretofore adopted by this court. It has long been established by the legislature that, as between the two parents, the father has the primary duty to support and maintain the minor children of the parties. It is free, therefore, to provide that the parent with this primary obligation is entitled to any damages recovered as a result of injury to or death of a minor child.
The appellant next argues that the legislation is invalid under the Constitution of the United States and the State of Alabama, because it discriminates against mothers of minor children. This argument was advanced and rejected in the recent case of Thorne v. Odom, 349 So. 2d 1126, 1128, 1129 (Ala.1977), where this court said:
The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, JONES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.