Adams v. Patterson
Decision Date | 08 March 1957 |
Citation | 201 Tenn. 655,5 McCanless 655,301 S.W.2d 362 |
Parties | , 201 Tenn. 655 Rube C. ADAMS v. J. E. PATTERSON. |
Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Joseph L. Lackey, Nashville, for petitioner, plaintiff-in-error.
Murray & Peeler, Waverly, for defendant, employer.
This is a proceeding to enforce payment of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Law, Section 50-901 et seq., T.C.A. The present action is based specifically on Section 50-1007, T.C.A. The trial judge allowed compensation but this was not satisfactory to the employee and he has appealed.
The record contains no motion for a new trial. There is no error in the technical record. The employer moves to dismiss for this reason. In this state of the record, this Court is without jurisdiction to consider the propositions of fact here raised. Mullins v. Tennessee Stave & Lbr. Co., 155 Tenn. 132, 290 S.W. 975; Bailey v. American Glanzstoff Corp., 163 Tenn. 206, 42 S.W.2d 347; Rule 14, 185 Tenn. 866; Atlas Powder Co. v. Leister, 197 Tenn. 491, 274 S.W.2d 364.
For this reason the appeal must be dismissed at the cost of the plaintiff in error, employee.
We have before us a petition to rehear in this case in which it is insisted that in view of Sections 27-303, and 27-304, T.C.A., motions for a new trial are not now required in a Workmen's Compensation case.
Insofar as here applicable Section 27-303, T.C.A., provides that 'All cases tried in a court of record without the intervention of a jury * * * shall be reviewed upon a simple appeal, * * * and no motion for a new trial shall be necessary, * * *.'
The argument is, in view of this language of the Code, that it was not necessary for the plaintiff in error to have filed a motion for new trial below. We, on March 8, 1957, dismissed the appeal because no motion for new trial was filed. In this opinion we cited two cases which were decided prior to the Code Amendment above quoted. We also cited the case of Atlas Powder Co. v. Leister, 197 Tenn. 491, 274 S.W.2d 864, which was subsequent to the Code Amendments now relied on. In this case, that is the Atlas Powder Co. case, this Court held that the specific law applicable to Workmen's Compensation cases was applied rather than the general statutes above referred to.
Code Section 50-1018, T.C.A., insofar as herein applicable provides:
'Any party to the proceedings in the circuit, criminal, or chancery court may, if dissatisfied or aggrieved by the judgment or decree of that court, pray an appeal in the nature of a writ of error to the Supreme Court, where the cause shall be heard and determined in accordance with practice governing other appeals in the nature of a writ of error in civil causes.'
This quoted portion of Section 50-1018, T.C.A., is applicable specifically to Workmen's Compensation cases. For the reasons stated in the Atlas Powder Co. case, supra, the appeal in a Workmen's Compensation case is in the nature of a writ of error and not by simple appeal. Under such a situation a motion for a new trial is necessary.
Motions for a new trial serve two purposes, to-wit: (a) to suspend the judgment so that the trial judge may have the time to correct his errors by the grant of a new trial; and (b) to set out the error as a ground and prerequisite to an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McKenzie v. Campbell & Dann Mfg. Co.
...he was given no opportunity to correct'. Mullins v. Tennessee Stave & Lumber Company, 155 Tenn. 132, 290 S.W. 975. Adams v. Patterson, 201 Tenn. 655, 301 S.W.2d 362. We are of the opinion that the injuries sustained by the petitioner are embraced within the general averments in the petition......
-
Strader v. United Family Life Ins. Co.
...cases would apply rather than the general sections, T.C.A. Sections 27--303 and 27--304. See also the case of Adams v. Patterson, 201 Tenn. 655, 301 S.W.2d 362 (1957). That portion of T.C.A. Section 50--1018 quoted in our original opinion is specifically applicable to appeals to this Court ......
-
Netherland v. Hunter
...cases would apply rather than the general sections, T.C.A. Sections 27-303 and 27-304. See also the case of Adams v. Patterson, 201 Tenn. 655, 301 S.W.2d 362 (1957). Strader v. United Family Life Ins. Co., 218 Tenn. 411, 403 S.W.2d 765, 768 (1966); see also State v. Nelson, 577 S.W.2d 465 (......
-
Hyter v. Wheland Co.
...Bottling Co., 191 Tenn. 135, at page 138, 229 S.W.2d 520, at page 522, 232 S.W.2d 11, at page 12. In our recent case of Adams v. Patterson, 201 Tenn. 655, 301 S.W.2d 362, we held that an appeal in workmen's compensation case is in nature of writ of error and not by simple appeal, and theref......