Rich Hill Coal Co. v. Bashore
Citation | 7 A.2d 302,334 Pa. 449 |
Decision Date | 27 March 1939 |
Docket Number | 1627 |
Parties | Rich Hill Coal Company et al. v. Bashore; Monarch Anthracite Mining Company et al. v. Bashore |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Argued January 12, 1939.
Bill in equity. Original jurisdiction, May T., 1939, Nos. 34 and 35, special certiorari to C.P. Dauphin Co., Nos. 1357 and 1414, in cases of Rich Hill Coal Company et al. v. Ralph M Bashore, Secretary of Labor & Industry, and Monarch Anthracite Mining Company et al. v. Same. Record remitted.
Wm. A Schnader, of Schnader & Lewis, with him Joseph S. Lord, III, and J. Hayden Oliver, for plaintiffs and intervening plaintiffs.
Guy K. Bard, Attorney General, and E. Russell Shockley, Deputy Attorney General, with them Oliver C. Cohen, Deputy Attorney General, and William H. Wood, Special Deputy Attorney General, for defendant.
M. Herbert Syme and Benj. R. Simons, of Syme & Simons, for Pennsylvania Federation of Labor, filed a brief under Rule 61.
Oliver K. Eaton, Roger J. Dever and Isadore Katz, for United Mine Workers of America et al., intervenors.
Before KEPHART, C.J., SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW, LINN, STERN and BARNES, JJ.
This case comes to us on a bill in equity, later amended, filed by certain coal companies to restrain the Secretary of Labor and Industry from enforcing the Workmen's Compensation Acts of 1937 and 1938. These acts are: 1, the Act (No. 323) of June 4, 1937, P.L. 1552; 2, the Act (No. 552) of July 2, 1937, P.L. 2714, called the "Occupational Disease Compensation Act"; and 3, Act No. 20 of the Special Session of 1938, approved September 29, 1938, P.L. 52. "1" is an "amendment" to the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1915, P.L. 736. "2" is a "supplement" to the Act of 1915. "3" amends Article II of the Act of 1915 "by adding a new section 201.1 thereto and imposing the presumption of negligence upon employers; providing for admission of certain evidence; and providing for double damage under certain circumstances." These acts are alleged to be unconstitutional. A motion was made for a preliminary injunction; a rule to show cause was granted; and testimony was later taken, showing, inter alia, the workmen's compensation insurance rates under the Act of 1915 and by comparison under the acts challenged. These new rates, as fixed by the Pennsylvania Compensation Rating and Inspection Bureau, represent an increase of 62 1/2 per cent over the rates under the old act. This would mean to one of the plaintiffs, the Morrisdale Company, a cost of 11 1/2 cents per ton of coal mined. It was also testified that the plaintiff just named considered rejecting the compensation system imposed by Act No. 323, but it was advised by insurance brokers that no insurance carrier in Pennsylvania would insure it against the liability in actions at law under the provisions of section 201, Article II of Act No. 323, which strips employers rejecting the compensation law of the following defenses: (1) the negligence of a fellow employee, (2) assumption of risk, (3) contributory negligence. (It should be noted in this connection that the hereinafter discussed Act No. 20, passed by the legislature after being called in special session, approved September 29, 1938, amending the Act of 1915, as reenacted and amended by the Act of June 4, 1937, P.L. 1552, No. 323, provides, inter alia, that "when injury results to an employee in the course of his employment it shall be presumed that the employer's negligence caused said injury, which presumption may be rebutted by the employer.") The other plaintiff, Rich Hill Coal Company, offered evidence that as to it the insurance rates under the new law represent about the same increase as the other plaintiff showed. The President of Rich Hill Coal Company testified as follows:
Upon the conclusion of the testimony, the court heard arguments upon the constitutional questions raised by the bill. On December 29, 1937, the defendant filed preliminary objections to the bill. The next day a preliminary injunction was granted. On December 31, 1937, 43 anthracite coal mining companies presented to the court a petition asking leave to intervene as parties plaintiff. The petitioners, all of whom are taxpayers, averred that, though they had all elected to pay compensation under Article III of the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1915, they had "been compelled as a matter of economic necessity to reject the system imposed by Acts Nos. 323 and 552." On December 31, 1937, leave to intervene was granted and the enforcement of Acts Nos. 323 and 552 was restrained against these intervening plaintiffs upon their posting required bonds. On January 3, 1938, the Attorney General and the attorney for plaintiffs, respectively, filed the following stipulation:
On the same day, the Attorney General presented to the Supreme Court the stipulation just quoted and also a petition averring that the only question between the parties was the constitutionality of Acts Nos. 323 and 552 and praying the court to bring the record before it on special certiorari so that the case might be decided finally at an early moment. Counsel for plaintiffs then notified this court that counsel for the intervening anthracite operators desired to present certain additional facts to the court in support of their contention that Acts Nos. 323 and 552 were unconstitutional. The Attorney General declared that these facts would be stipulated by agreement. The defendant later asserted that the facts could not be stipulated. Thereupon, on May 12, 1938, certain of the intervening plaintiffs, to wit: Monarch Anthracite Mining Company, The Kingston Coal Company, Glen Alden Coal Company, The Lehigh Valley Coal Company and The Hudson Coal Company, filed a separate bill in equity in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County setting up certain facts, inter alia, as follows: The defendant later filed preliminary objections to the bill of the five anthracite coal companies above named.
Claiming that defendant failed to comply with Equity Rule No. 49 by neither placing the case upon the argument list for hearing nor filing an answer on the merits, plaintiffs, on July 25 1938, filed as appears from the docket entry a "suggestion for judgment pro confesso in favor of plaintiffs against defendant for failure to file an answer as provided by Equity Rule No....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sarne v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.
...... et al., (No. 1), 287 Pa. 410, 135 A. 250; Dobash v. Jeddo-Highland Coal Company, 141 Pa.Super. 62, 14 A.2d. 842. There is no question of ... 52. After the amendment was declared unconstitutional (see. Rich Hill Coal Company et al. v. Bashore, 334 Pa. 449, 7 A.2d 302), the Act of ......
-
Sarne v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.
......Charlson (No. 1), 287 Pa. 410, 135 A. 250; Dobash v. Jeddo-Highland Coal Company, 141 Pa.Super. 62, 14 A.2d 842. There is no question of ...§ 52. After the amendment was declared unconstitutional (see Rich Hill Coal Company v. Bashore, 334 Pa. 449, 7 A.2d 302), the Act of June ......
-
Liebtag v. Dilworth
...... under the decision in the Shortz case: Rich Hill Coal. Company v. Bashore, 334 Pa. 449, 493 (1939). . . ......
-
Pinzhoffer v. Franzen
...... conclusions of the referee and the compensation board:. Hill v. Thomas S. Gassner Co. et al., 124 Pa.Super. 217; Paulin v. Williams & ... policy, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in the case. of Rich Hill Coal Co. et al. v. Bashore, 334 Pa. 449. (1939), declaring certain ......