From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State ex Rel. Syrup Co. v. Compensation Comm

Supreme Court of Missouri, Court en Banc
Jul 30, 1928
320 Mo. 893 (Mo. 1928)

Summary

In State ex rel. Brewen-Clark Syrup Co. v. Missouri Workmen's Compensation Commission, 8 S.W.2d 897, our Supreme Court ruled that, while the Compensation Act does not expressly provide that the circuit court in a case in which it does not reverse, remand for a rehearing, or set aside the award, shall render judgment in accordance with the award, such is the necessary implication arising from its language.

Summary of this case from Howes v. Stark Bros. Nurseries & Orchards Co.

Opinion

July 30, 1928.

1. PROHIBITION: Compensation Commission: Propriety of Writ. In hearing and determining the facts of a controversy between an employer and employee, the Workmen's Compensation Commission exercises a judicial function, and a writ of prohibition is always applicable whenever judicial functions are assumed which do not rightfully belong to a person, court or board assuming to exercise them. It is not the nature of the act, nor the character of the board or tribunal proceeded against, which determines the propriety of the writ. The writ lies to prohibit the Commission from determining the right of an employee to be awarded compensation for injuries received in another State.

2. PROHIBITION: Compensation Commission: New Question: Delay. The Workmen's Compensation Act is new, and while it provides an adequate judicial review of the findings and rulings of the Commission in a pending matter, including questions of its usurpation of power, the writ of prohibition will issue where the operations of the act may be delayed in numerous instances to await judicial construction of its provisions, and the public interest requires that its powers be determined at the earliest possible moment.

3. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT: Injuries Received in Other States. The Missouri Workmen's Compensation Act expressly provides (Laws 1927, p. 498, sec. 12) that it shall apply to "all injuries received outside of this State under contract of employment made in this State," and said provision is not void on the theory that it relates to a cause of action arising beyond the boundaries of the State, but the construction and the legal obligations arising out of the act are to be determined by the laws of this State.

4. ____: ____: Employment Preceding Adoption of Act: Acceptance. Although the Workmen's Compensation Act was adopted after the employment of the employee, if both employee and employer accepted the act it immediately became a part of and to the extent of all its terms and provisions supplemented, the existing contract of employment between them; and if the contract was made in this State, the employer is bound by the act to compensate the employee for injury in case of accident wherever it occurred.

5. ____: ____: Enforcement of Award. An award by the Workmen's Compensation Commission for injuries to an employee occurring outside of this State is enforceable. The act provides for an appeal from a final award to the circuit court of the county in which the contract of employment was made, if the accident occurred outside of this State, and while it provides no method for enforcing an "award unappealed from" other statutes do.

6. ____: ____: ____: Arbitration Board. The Workmen's Compensation Commission is in all essential respects a statutory board of arbitration, and an award made by it, if within the scope of its authority, determines the rights of the parties as effectually as does a judgment secured by regular legal procedure, and can be enforced in an ordinary action at law, as can other judgments.

7. ____: Title. The title to the Workmen's Compensation Act is broad enough to embrace provisions in the act providing for the award of compensation for injuries occurring beyond the boundaries of the State, where the contract of employment was made in this State.

Corpus Juris-Cyc. References: Prohibition. 32 Cyc., p. 604, n. 32; p. 606, n. 41; p. 613, n. 99. Statutes, 36 Cyc., p. 976, n. 27. Workmen's Compensation Acts. — C.J., Section 28, p. 32, n. 46; Section 109, n. 114, n. 9; Section 127, p. 123, n. 45; Section 148, p. 130, n. 45; Section 155, p. 135, n. 42.

Prohibition.

PROVISIONAL WRIT DISCHARGED.

Mosman, Rogers Buzard for relator.

(1) Section 12 of the Workmen's Compensation Act which provides that the act shall be extra-territorial in effect, is null and void. because there is no provision for enforcing an award for injuries occurring outside of the State. Texas Employers' Ins. Assn. v. Price, 291 S.W. 287; Oilmen's Reciprocal Assn. v. Franklin, 286 S.W. 195; Sec. 45, Laws 1927, p. 498. (2) Section 45 of the act provides that any party interested may file in the circuit court of the county in which the accident occurred a certified copy of the Commission's award and have judgment entered thereupon. The section is exclusive in its provision for the enforcement of the award, and the court has no power to read into the statute any provision claiming a power to enforce an award of the Commission. Dworkin v. Ins. Co., 285 Mo. 342; State v. Water Co., 212 Mo. 101; Black. Interpretation of Laws, p. 57; Kehr v. City of Columbia, 136 Mo. App. 322; Hodge v. Dawdy, 104 Ark. 583; State ex rel. Tracy v. Taaffe, 25 Mo. App. 567; Hewitt v. Truitt, 23 Mo. App. 443; State ex rel. Mickey v. Reneau, 75 Nehr. 1. (3) The title of the act contains more than one subject and contravenes Section 28 of Article 4 of the Constitution of Missouri, in that there is no reference in the title of the act to the fact that it was intended to make the act extra-territorial in effect and therefore that provision of the act is null and void. Niedermeyer v. Hackmann, 237 S.W. 742. (4) The legislative power cannot be exercised to control a cause of action arising beyond the boundaries of the state. Gardner v. Constr. Co., 156 N.Y.S. 899; Smith v. Safety Boiler Co., 224 N.Y. 9; Johns-Manville Co. v. Thrane, 141 N.E. 229; Anderson v. Scrap Iron Co., 169 Wis. 106; Union Bridge Co. v. Industrial Comm., 298 Ill. 396. (5) Prohibition is the proper remedy to arrest the action of respondents. (a) Respondents act in a judicial capacity. State ex rel. v. Harty, 208 S.W. 835; State ex rel. McEntee v. Bright, 224 Mo. 514; State ex rel. Willys-Overland Co. v. Clark, 147 N.E. 33; Bee Hive Mining Co. v. Industrial Comm., 132 S.E. 177; Sec. 41. Workmen's Compensation Act. (b) Respondents are attempting to proceed in a case where they do not have jurisdiction of the subject-matter and hence prohibition will issue to arrest their action. State ex rel. Kaiser v. Miller, 289 S.W. 898. (c) The court, having issued its preliminary writ, may retain the case, although relator may have a remedy by appeal. State ex rel. Mueller v. Wurdeman, 232 S.W. 1002.

North T. Gentry, Attorney-General. L. Cunningham and T.H. Antrobus Assistant Attorneys-General, for respondents.

(1) Prohibition is not a proper remedy in this case. It will only go to keep an inferior court or tribunal or body from exercising judicial functions without the orbit of its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court will not exercise jurisdiction except on a clear showing of lack of jurisdiction in the inferior court as a matter of law as distinguished from a matter of fact and that the ordinary remedies by appeal, writ of error or certiorari are absent. State ex rel. Warde v. McQuillin, 262 Mo. 256. This court should assume that the inferior court, tribunal or body will conduct the proceedings before it according to correct principles of law. If such court, tribunal or body has authority to act, its jurisdiction is in no way impaired by a consideration of the fact that it might act erroneously. Such would be a matter of error to be corrected on appeal. State ex rel. Fenne v. McQuillin, 256 Mo. 693; State ex rel. Warde v. McQuillin, 262 Mo. 256. The Workmen's Compensation Commission has jurisdiction to hear a claim of an injured employee for injuries received by him arising out of and in the course of his employment; and even if prohibition would lie against the Commission on the theory that it exercised judicial functions, it should not lie in this case. An inferior court has as much right to determine the facts going to its jurisdiction as it has to determine any other fact. State ex rel. v. Shields, 237 Mo. 329. Prohibition does not lie against the Workmen's Compensation Commission because it is not a court or body exercising judicial functions. Its duties and powers are purely administrative. It is well-settled law that the writ of prohibition must be directed to some judicial officer or body. Its purpose is to restrain judicial action and not legislative, executive or administrative action. State ex rel. McEntee v. Bright, 224 Mo. 514; State ex rel. v. Goodier, 195 Mo. 561. (2) The Workmen's Compensation Act, provides a complete scheme for the payment of compensation to injured employees, and defines the authority and power of the Commission, Sees. 3, 6, 7, 12, Laws 1927, p. 492. The contract of employment was made in the State of Missouri. It contained no provision that the Workmen's Compensation Act should not apply to injuries received in another state. The employment was for the employee to travel as a salesman in Missouri, Oklahoma and Kansas. The injury was received while he was engaged in such employment in the State of Oklahoma and arose out of the employment. 1 Honnold on Workmen's Compensation, par. 101, p. 320. The act contemplates voluntary arbitration or settlements by agreement rather than suits at law. It presumes that the parties elect to accept the provisions of the act. Such election is in the nature of a contract and the law should be considered as read into and made a part of the contract of employment. State Ind. Comm. v. Nordenholt Corp., 259 U.S. 263; Crane v. Leonard, 214 Mich. 218; Reutenik v. Packing Co., 132 Wn. 108; Berry v. Donovan, 120 Mo. 457.


Original proceeding in prohibition. The facts are not in dispute, and the parties agree as to the questions of law involved. An adequate statement of both appears in relator's brief as follows:

"Relator filed in this court its petition for writ of prohibition, in which it alleged its corporate existence and the proper legal status of respondents, and that W.M. Amick, a resident of Jackson County, Missouri, entered the employ of relator under contract dated January 1, 1926, as a traveling salesman to travel in the States of Missouri, Kansas and Oklahoma; that at a date after the Compensation Act became a law, and prior to January 1, 1927, in the State of Missouri, said employee was directed by relator to make a trip to Bartlesville, Oklahoma, and said Amick claims that while on said trip he received an injury due to slipping upon ice upon a public sidewalk in the city of Bartlesville, State of Oklahoma; that Amick claims that said accident and the injuries resulting therefrom arose out of and in the course of his employment and he claims that he is entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act of the State of Missouri; that respondents have notified relator that claim for compensation has been made by Amick, and respondents have required relator to make answer to said claim, and respondents have assumed jurisdiction of said claim; that relator has filed an answer to said claim with respondents, by which answer relator denies that Amick is entitled to compensation, because the injury occurred in Oklahoma, and is therefore to be governed by the laws of that State and is not subject to the Compensation Act of Missouri; that respondents intend to and are about to proceed with an adjudication of the rights of Amick and to an award of compensation. . . .

"The prayer of the petition is for an order of prohibition directed to respondents prohibiting them from further proceeding in the matter of Amick's claim for compensation.

"The issues of law are:

"1. Does the respondent commission have the power to make a valid and enforcible award for compensation to an employee working under a contract of employment made in this State, when such employee is injured while performing his duties for his employers, in a foreign State?

"2. Is prohibition the proper remedy to determine the question?"

I. Respondents insist that prohibition does not lie in this case, for the reason, as they alleged, "that the Missouri Workmen's Compensation Commission is not a court, tribunal or body exercising judicial functions, but that its duties and powers are purely Province administrative." It must be conceded that the of Writ. Commission is not invested with judicial power in the sense in which that term is used in Article III of the Constitution, providing for the distribution of the powers of government. [Underwood v. McDuffee, 15 Mich. 361; Hunter v. Coal Company, 175 Iowa 245, 307-318.] But it is authorized to hear and determine controversies between employer and employee; and while it cannot in any case enforce its findings and award, such findings and award have the force and effect of the verdict of a jury and in the same way become the basis for a court judgment. [Secs. 40, 41, 44 and 45, Workmen's Compensation Act, Laws 1927, pp. 511-512.] In hearing and determining the facts the Commission clearly performs a judicial function. And we have long held that the writ of prohibition is applicable whenever judicial functions are assumed which do not rightfully belong to the person or court assuming to exercise them; that it is the nature of the act, and not the character of the board or tribunal proceeded against, which determines the propriety of the writ. [State ex rel. v. Harty, 276 Mo. 583, 208 S.W. 835.]

It is also true, as respondents contend, that relator could have had an adequate judicial review of the findings and rulings of the Commission in the pending matter, including questions of its usurpation of power, had it followed the procedure outline in Section 44 of the act, and that we could properly have refused to entertain this proceeding on the grounds set forth in our Rule 32. But the Workmen's Compensation Act, though similar to many of those adopted in other states, is new; and for that reason its operations may be delayed in numerous instances awaiting judicial construction of its provisions. We have therefore deemed it to be in the public interest to put at rest at the earliest possible moment the questions presented on this record.

II. 1. Section 12 of the act provides:

"(b) This act shall apply to all injuries received in this State, regardless of where the contract of Extra-territorial employment was made, and also to all injuries Jurisdiction. received outside of this State under contract of employment made in this State unless the contract of employment in any case shall otherwise provide." [Laws 1927, p. 498.]

Relator contends that the provision, to the extent that it relates to injuries received outside of this State, is void. The main ground urged in support of the contention is that "the legislative power cannot be exercised to control a cause of action arising beyond the boundaries of the State." A brief examination of the nature of relator's obligation to its employee will disclose the inapplicability of the principle invoked. The Workmen's Compensation Act of this State is elective. The acceptance of its provisions is entirely optional with both employer and employee. When accepted by them it enters into and becomes an integral part of the contract of employment. The act was adopted after the employment of Amick by relator; but as both accepted it, as must be assumed from the record here, it immediately became a part of, and to the extent of all its terms and provisions supplemented, the contract of employment existing between them. Such contract was made in this State, and, with respect to the payment and the acceptance of compensation for injury in case of accident — wherever it occurred — was to be performed in this State; consequently all questions relating to its construction and the legal obligations arising from it are to be determined according to the laws of this State. By its terms relator agreed to pay and Amick, the employee, agreed to accept compensation in case of accident in accordance with the provisions of the act. These mutual promises are binding upon the parties and enforcible in any jurisdiction the same as any other contract.

The cause of action alluded to by relator accrued, not from the commission of a tort in Oklahoma, but through the breach of a contractual obligation which was entered into in Missouri and which was to be performed in this State. The breach consisted of relator's refusal to pay the stipulated compensation.

The foregoing views have the support of the authorities generally, many of which are reviewed in Crane v. Leonard, 214 Mich. 218.

2. Relator contends that said Section 12 is void for the further reason that "there is no provision for Enforcement enforcing an award for injuries occurring outside of of Award. the State." Section 44 of the act provides:

"The final award of the commission shall be conclusive and binding unless either party to the dispute shall within thirty days from the date of the final award appeal to the circuit court of the county in which the accident occurred, or if the accident occurred outside of this State, then in the county where the contract of employment was made. . . . The court, on appeal, shall review only questions of law and may modify, reverse, remand for rehearing, or set aside the award upon any of the following grounds and no other; (here follows a specification of grounds)."

While the section does not expressly provide that the circuit court, in cases in which it does not "reverse, remand for rehearing or set aside the award," shall render judgment in accordance with it, such is the necessary implication arising from its language.

Section 45 of the act provides:

"Any party in interest may file in the circuit court of the county in which the accident occurred, a certified copy of a memorandum of agreement approved by the commission or of an order or decision of the commission, or of an award of the commission unappealed from, whereupon said court shall render judgment in accordance therewith and notify the parties."

It will be observed that this section makes no provision for the filing in the circuit court of an "award unappealed from," in cases in which the accident occurred outside of the State. This was clearly a legislative omission and is the basis of relator's contention that there is no provision for enforcing an award for injuries occurring outside of the State. But, as indicated, it is only the unappealed from awards for injuries occurring outside of the State which are affected by the omission. It thus appears that the statute affords the machinery for a full and complete judicial review of awards for injuries happening out of the State, but provides no method for enforcing those in which such a review is not sought. Are not those awards enforcible notwithstanding the omission.

The Workmen's Compensation Commission is in all essential respects a statutory board of arbitrators. An award made by them, while acting within the scope of their authority, determines the rights of the parties as effectually as a judgment secured by regular legal procedure, and is as binding as a judgment, until it is regularly set aside or its validity questioned in a proper manner. Such an award may be enforced in an ordinary action at law. In common law parlance, "an action in debt or in assumpsit is the proper remedy." [2 R.C.L. 388.]

3. It is further said "that there is no reference in the title of the act to the fact that it was intended to make the act extra-territorial in effect and that therefore the provision of the act is null and void." This contention is so entirely Title. devoid of merit as to require neither elaboration nor discussion.

In accordance with the views herein expressed, the provisional rule heretofore issued is discharged and the proceeding dismissed. All concur, except Gentry, J., not sitting, and Walker, C.J., absent.


Summaries of

State ex Rel. Syrup Co. v. Compensation Comm

Supreme Court of Missouri, Court en Banc
Jul 30, 1928
320 Mo. 893 (Mo. 1928)

In State ex rel. Brewen-Clark Syrup Co. v. Missouri Workmen's Compensation Commission, 8 S.W.2d 897, our Supreme Court ruled that, while the Compensation Act does not expressly provide that the circuit court in a case in which it does not reverse, remand for a rehearing, or set aside the award, shall render judgment in accordance with the award, such is the necessary implication arising from its language.

Summary of this case from Howes v. Stark Bros. Nurseries & Orchards Co.
Case details for

State ex Rel. Syrup Co. v. Compensation Comm

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE EX REL. BREWEN-CLARK SYRUP COMPANY v. MISSOURI WORKMEN'S…

Court:Supreme Court of Missouri, Court en Banc

Date published: Jul 30, 1928

Citations

320 Mo. 893 (Mo. 1928)
8 S.W.2d 897

Citing Cases

Hartman v. Union Electric L. P. Co.

(1) The Missouri Workmen's Compensation Act is not compulsory, but on the contrary is wholly voluntary,…

State ex Rel. Love v. Becker

(1) The proceeding contemplated by the notice of the Commissioner of Corporations is judicial in its nature.…