Burton Shields Co. v. Steele

Decision Date18 April 1949
Docket NumberNo. 17815.,17815.
Citation119 Ind.App. 216,85 N.E.2d 263
PartiesBURTON SHIELDS CO. v. STEELE.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Industrial Board.

On petition for rehearing.

Petition denied.

For former opinion, see 83 N.E.2d 623.William E. Hart and Charles J. Barnhill, both of Indianapolis (Slaymaker, Merrell, Locke & Reynolds, Indianapolis, of Counsel), for appellants.

Isidore Feibleman, Julian Bamberger, and Charles B. Feibleman, all of Indianapolis, for appellees.

BOWEN, Judge.

The appellant in its brief on petition for rehearing urges that this court should have reversed the award with instructions to enter an award in favor of appellant, and the suggestion is also contained in appellee's brief of a possibility of a need for the clarification of the mandate of this court in the original opinion as to any further proceedings before the Industrial Board.

The mandate of this court as set forth in the original opinion was the only proper mandate which this court has the power and authority to make under the conclusions reached on the issues.

Our Supreme Court in the case of Heflin v. Red Front Cash & Carry Stores, 1947, 225 Ind. 517, 75 N.E.2d 662, on page 665, stated:

‘* * * The right of the Appellate Court to review an award of the Industrial Board is given by § 40-1512, Burns' 1940 Replacement. Under this statute the review is for errors of law. This statute merely gives the Appellate Court authority to determine whether, upon the facts and law, the action of the board is based upon an error of law or is wholly unsupported by the evidence or clearly arbitrary or capricious. This particular statute does not empower the Appellate Court to order the board to enter an award. By this statute the legislature did not undertake to vest in the court the administrative function of determining whether or not an award should be granted, ‘citing Ma-King Products Company v. Blair, 1925, 271 U.S. 479, 46 S.Ct. 544, 70 L.Ed. 1046; Vom Baur, Federal Administrative Law, Vol. 1, § 44; Russell v. Ely & Walker Dry Goods Co., 1933, 332 Mo. 645, 60 S.W.2d 44, 87 A. L. R. 953;King v. Alabam's Freight Co., 1932, 40 Ariz. 363, 12 P.2d 294;Paramount Pictures, etc., v. Industrial Commission, 1940, 56 Ariz. 217, 106 P.2d 1024, Opinion on Rehearing 56 Ariz. 352, 106 P.2d 1024;McGarry v. Industrial Commission, 1925, 64 Utah 592, 232 P. 1090, 39 A.L.R. 306;Cole v. Sheehan Construction Co., 1944, 222 Ind. 274, 53 N.E.2d 172;Cole v. Sheehan Construction Co., 1944, 115 Ind.App. 303, 57 N.E.2d 625; 42 Am.Jur., Public Administrative Law, § 247.

In the Heflin case, supra, the Appellate Court had reversed an award of the Industrial Board with instructions to said Board to enter an award in favor of the appellant. 73 N.E.2d 494. The Supreme Court upon transfer of this case held that this mandate was improper in the following language:

‘It is our opinion that upon the reversal of this award the cause should be remanded to the Industrial Board of Indiana and upon its being so remanded the board...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • United Toolcraft, Inc. v. Sousley
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • January 24, 1958
    ...Carry Stores, Inc., 1948, 225 Ind. 517, 75 N.E.2d 662; Burton-Shields Company v. Steele, 1949, 119 Ind.App. 216, 224, 225, 83 N.E.2d 623, 85 N.E.2d 263; Blackfoot Coal & Land Corporation v. Cooper, 1951, 121 Ind.App. 313, 95 N.E.2d 639 (Transfer denied); Eureka Chevrolet Company v. Franklin......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT