OHIO V. CHATTANOOGA BOILER & TANK CO.

• Decision Date: 22 May 1933
• Citation: 289 U. S. 439
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Ohio v. Chattanooga Boiler & Tank Co.

No. 18, Original

Argued April 10, 1933

Decided May 22, 1933

289 U.S. 439

Syllabus

1. The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not give any greater effect to a state statute elsewhere than is given in the courts of the State that enacted it. P. 443.

2. The Tennessee Workmen's Compensation Act, as construed by the Supreme Court of the state, does not preclude recovery from an employer, under the compensation act, and in the courts of another state, on account of an injury suffered there by an employee in the course of his employment, although both employer and employee were citizens of Tennessee and the employer had its principal place of business in Tennessee and the contract of employment was made there. Bradford Electric Light Co. v. Clapper, 286 U. S. 145, distinguished. P. 442.

Judgment for Plaintiff.

Original action by the State of Ohio to recover from a Tennessee corporation the amount paid out of an Ohio insurance fund to satisfy an award against the corporation in a proceeding under the Ohio Workmen's Compensation Act.

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

The State of Ohio invokes, by an action at law, the original jurisdiction of this Court to recover the sum of ,910.64 from the Chattanooga Boiler & Tank Company, a corporation organized in Tennessee and having its principal place of business there. Reimbursement is sought by the state of the amount paid from its insurance fund to Mrs. Cora Tidwell, as compensation for the death

Page 289 U. S. 440

of her husband, an employee of the company, who was killed at Ironton, Ohio, while engaged in erecting a tank. The claim rests upon the Workmen's Compensation Act of Ohio, §§ 1465-37 to 1465-110 of the General Code -- a law of the compulsory type held constitutional in Mountain Timber Co. v. Washington, 243 U. S. 219.

The proceeding at bar is one to enforce a statutory cause of action for liquidated damages, based on an award made to Mrs. Tidwell by the Industrial Commission. [^{Footnote 1}] The employer relies, as its only defense, upon the full faith and credit clause, invoking the rule declared in Bradford Electric Light Co. v. Clapper, 286 U. S. 145. That defense was not set up in the proceedings before the Ohio Commission. The Ohio law does not provide for review of an award by an appeal, but the employer is entitled to challenge, in an action for reimbursement, the correctness of the award in

Page 289 U. S. 441

all respects save the amount of compensation. [^{Footnote 2}] Whether the full faith and credit clause is applicable to proceedings in this Court in the same manner and to the same extent as to proceedings in the courts of a state and in the lower federal courts we have no occasion to consider, for we are of opinion that, on the facts here presented, the rule declared in the Clapper case is not applicable.

The following facts were agreed: the employer never had a regular place of business in Ohio; had not qualified to do business there as a foreign corporation, and had not complied with the provisions of the Ohio Workmen's Compensation Law, either by becoming a subscriber to the state insurance fund or by electing to pay compensation direct to injured employees or to their dependents in case of death. Both the company and Tidwell were residents of Tennessee; Tidwell had entered its employ there; it was a term of the employment that he should serve also in other states, and he had been brought to Ohio to erect there the tank which had been fabricated in Tennessee. Both the company and Tidwell had accepted the provisions

Page 289 U. S. 442

of the Tennessee Workmen's Compensation Act, a law of the elective type, and under that law, his widow would have been entitled to recover as compensation about ,200. After Tidwell's death, his widow, who had become a citizen and resident of Georgia, filed her application for compensation with the Industrial Commission of Ohio. The company, appearing specially, challenged the jurisdiction of the commission. The objection was overruled; the company made no defense before that tribunal, and the commission found that the company was an employer within the meaning of the Ohio law; that the injury was sustained accidentally in the course of the employment, and that the widow had not, before filing the claim, begun a court action against the employer on account of the death. Upon failure of the company to pay the award, it was paid from the state insurance fund.

In the Clapper case, it was held that the Vermont Workmen's Compensation Act was a defense to an action brought in New Hampshire under the New Hampshire act to recover for the death in that state of a Vermont resident who had been employed by a Vermont company, pursuant to a contract made in Vermont; because:

"It clearly was the purpose of the Vermont act [^{Footnote 3}] to preclude

Page 289 U. S. 443

any recovery by proceedings brought in another state for injuries received in the course of a Vermont employment."

286 U.S. at 153. [^{Footnote 4}] The Tennessee Act is different. It is true that it provides that,

"when an accident happens while the employee is elsewhere than in this state which would entitle him or his dependents to compensation had it happened in this state, the employee or his dependents shall be entitled to compensation under this chapter if the contract of employment was made in this state, unless otherwise expressly provided by said contract,"

Tenn.Code 1932, § 6870, and that

"the rights and remedies herein granted to an employee subject to this chapter on account of personal injury or death by accident shall exclude all other rights and remedies of such employee, his personal representative, dependents, or next of kin, at common law or otherwise, on account of such injury or death."

Id., § 6859. But, as construed and applied by the highest court of Tennessee, the statute does not preclude recovery under the law of another state. And the full faith and credit clause does not require that greater effect be given the Tennessee statute elsewhere than is given in the courts of that state. Compare Allen v. Alleghany Co., 196 U. S. 458, 465; Robertson v. Pickrell, 109 U. S. 608, 610-611; Board of Public Works v. Columbia College, 17 Wall. 521, 84 U. S. 529.

The decision in Tidwell v. Chattanooga Boiler & Tank Co., 163 Tenn. 420, 648, 43 S.W.2d 221, 222, id., 163 Tenn. 648, 45 S.W.2d 528, shows that the provision of the Tennessee law making its remedy an exclusive one is not applicable on the facts here presented. In that case, Mrs. Tidwell brought (while the application in Ohio was pending and before

Page 289 U. S. 444

the award) an action in Tennessee to recover compensation under the Tennessee Act. The court held that, by bringing the Ohio proceedings, the widow had renounced her right under the Tennessee Act, and final judgment was entered for the company shortly before the action at bar was begun. The opinion states that the suit is one upon contract; that "the sole defense interposed is the proceedings in Ohio;" that the institution of the proceedings in Ohio

"was a clear renunciation or disaffirmance of the...