Biggs v. Cummins
| Decision Date | 24 March 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 33454,33454 |
| Citation | 126 N.E.2d 208,5 Ill.2d 512 |
| Parties | Euseblus J. BIGGS, Appellant, v. Roy F. CUMMINS et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Eusebius Biggs, pro se.
Latham Castle, Atty. Gen. (William C. Wines, Raymond S. Sarnow, and A. Zola Groves, Chicago, of counsel), for appellees.
Eusebius J. Biggs appeals from an order of the circuit court of Cook County, which affirmed a decision of the board of review for the Department of Labor finding that during the year 1952 appellant was an employer liable for payment of contributions under the Unemployment Compensation Act. Ill.Rev.Stat.1953, chap. 48, pars. 300-820.
The administrative proceedings originated with a claim filed by one George Bingham for unemployment compensation. In processing the claim a deputy of the Division of Unemployment Compensation found that Bingham was paid wages in the amount of $2432.20 by appellant in 1952, that during such year appellant was an employer liable for the payment of contributions under the act, and that Bingham was entitled to unemployment compensation. Upon appeal by appellant to a referee, and further appeal from the referee's decision to the board of review of the Department of Labor, the decision of the deputy was affirmed. Appellant thereafter filed the present complaint in the circuit court seeking a review under the provisions of the Administrative Review Act. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1953, chap. 110, pars. 264-279.) The board of review filed an answer, consisting of the entire record of the proceedings before the Department of Labor commencing with the claim for benefits. The claimant, George Bingham, also filed an answer, and appearances were filed for the other defendants.
Appellant then filed a purported motion in which he asserts that the record as filed by the board of review is incomplete in that it fails to contain his 'testimony' showing the Department of Labor to be dominated and controlled by labor unions for illegal purposes. The motion contains lengthy recitals of appellant's past experiences with labor unions, of previous administrative proceedings concerning other matters in which he participated, and of certain prior litigation with the board of review. The motion further sets forth that evidence supporting the statements contained therein is in possession of the defendants other than Bingham, and that they have refused to supply it to the court. It concludes by moving the court to enter judgment declaring the Unemployment Compensation Act unconstitutional because of the manner in which it is administered. Affidavits were filed in the circuit court on behalf of defendants stating that the record as filed therein was true and correct and constituted a complete record of the administrative proceedings in connection with the claim of George Bingham. The court thereafter entered an order affirming the decision of the board of review; and the appellant, appearing pro se as he did in the proceedings below, seeks further review by appealing directly to this court. Although much of appellant's brief and argument is unintelligible and obscure, he apparently contends that he was denied due process of law because the circuit court upon review refused to hear evidence showing the Unemployment Compensation Act to be unconstitutional; and that section 11 of the Administrative Review Act is unconstitutional because it provides that the court shall not hear any new or additional evidence.
At the outset it is necessary to consider appellees' contention that the appeal should be dismissed on the ground that appellant failed to make the claimant, George Bingham, a party to the appeal by serving him with a copy of the notice of appeal. Rule 34 of this court (Ill.Rev.Stat.1953, chap. 110, par. 259.34), in so far as it is relevant here, provides as follows: 'A copy of the notice by which the appeal is perfected shall be served upon each party, whether appellee or co-party, who would be adversely affected by any reversal or modification of the order, judgment or decree, * * * within ten days after said notice of appeal is filed in the lower court.' The rule further provides that 'Within 5 days after service has been made, evidence thereof consisting of a return or an acknowledgment or an affidavit of the service of the notice of appeal, proof of the facts authorizing posting, if such method has been employed, shall be filed, and no action shall be taken until such evidence or proof has been filed.' It is undisputed that George Bingham was not served with a copy of the notice of appeal, and is not a party to the appeal. Appellees insist that a reversal or modification of the order appealed from would adversely affect him, and that the failure to serve him is fatal to the appeal. It is true that the claimant in unemployment compensation proceedings is a necessary party in any action to review a final decision allowing the claim; that a reversal in the case at bar would deprive Bingham of the unemployment compensation to which he has been held entitled in this cause; and that his interests would be adversely affected by a reversal or modification of the order. Cuny v. Annunzio, 411 Ill. 613, 104 N.E.2d 780. In the case at bar, however, it appears that the claimant has waived the right to be served with a copy of the notice of appeal. We have granted a motion for leave to file such written waiver in this court, and to make the same a part of the record herein. Under such circumstances appellant's failure to comply with the rule does not require that the appeal be dismissed.
Appellant's attack on the validity of the Unemployment Compensation Act...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nwaokocha v. Ill. Dep't of Fin. & Prof'l Regulation
...failing to adequately raise it. Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. July 1, 2017) ("[p]oints not argued are waived"); Biggs v. Cummins , 5 Ill. 2d 512, 516, 126 N.E.2d 208 (1955) ("It is not enough merely to assert in a vague and general fashion that constitutional safeguards are violated."). ¶ ......
-
Mlade v. Finley
...It is not enough merely to assert in a vague and general fashion that constitutional safeguards are violated." Biggs v. Cummins (1955), 5 Ill.2d 512, 516, 126 N.E.2d 208; see also Redmond v. Novak (1981), 86 Ill.2d 374, 378, 55 Ill.Dec. 933, 427 N.E.2d 53 (holding that constitutional issues......
-
People v. Palkes, 44010
...that constitutional issues cannot be raised by such general allegations. In re Simaner, 15 Ill.2d 568, 155 N.E.2d 555; Biggs v. Cummins, 5 Ill.2d 512, 126 N.E.2d 208; Jewel Tea Co. v. Rowe, 414 Ill. 495, 111 N.E.2d The second and fourth allegations are likewise general in nature and lacking......
-
Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Bowling
...allowing the claim where his interests might be adversely affected by a reversal or modification of the order. Biggs v. Cummins (1955), 5 Ill.2d 512, 126 N.E.2d 208. We note, however, our belief that a review here could not have any adverse affect on the 2,788 additional claimants named in ......