Christensen v. R.W. Bartelmann Co.

Decision Date09 June 1916
Docket NumberNo. 10605.,10605.
PartiesCHRISTENSEN v. R. W. BARTELMANN CO.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Appellate Court, First District, on Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Charles H. Bowles, Judge.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Carl Christensen to obtain compensation for personal injuries, opposed by the R. W. Bartelmann Company, the employer. Compensation was denied, the decision of the board of arbitration reversed by the circuit court, and the employer appealed to the Appellate Court. From an order of the Appellate Court dismissing the appeal, the employer appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

John A. Bloomingston, of Chicago, for appellant.

John J. Sonsteby, of Chicago, for appellee.

DUNN, J.

The question to be decided in this case is whether, under the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1911, an appeal was allowed to the Appellate Court from the judgment of the circuit court rendered on an appeal from the finding of the board of arbitration. The appellee received an injury while he was employed by the appellant. The board of arbitration decided that he was not entitled to compensation. On his appeal to the circuit court of Cook county a jury found a verdict in his favor, upon which the court entered judgment. An appeal was allowed to the Appellate Court, but that court, on motion of the appellee, dismissed the appeal on the ground that it had no jurisdiction. This appeal is from the order of dismissal; the court having granted a certificate of importance.

The act in question contains no provision for an appeal from the judgment of the circuit court. If there was any right to such appeal, it was by virtue of section 8 of the Appellate Court Act (Hurd's Rev. St. 1913, c. 37, § 25) and section 91 of the Practice Act (Hurd's Rev. St. 1913, c. 110), the first of which provides that:

The Appellate Courts shall ‘have jurisdiction of all matters of appeal, or writs of error from the final judgments, orders or decrees of any of the circuit courts, or the superior court of Cook county, or county courts, or from the city courts in any suit or proceeding at law, or in chancery other than criminal cases, not misdemeanors, and cases involving a franchise or freehold or the validity of a statute.’

Section 91 of the Practice Act provides:

‘Appeals shall lie to and writs of error from the Appellate or Supreme Court, as may be allowed by law, to review the final judgments, orders or decrees of any of the circuit courts, the superior court of Cook county, the county courts or the city courts and other courts from which appeals and to which writs of error may be allowed by law, in any suit or proceeding at law or in chancery.’

Both of these statutes authorize appeals from the courts mentioned, in any suit or proceeding at law or in chancery. The question therefore is whether the proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1911 in the circuit court on appeal was a proceeding at law or in chancery, within the meaning of the sections of the Appellate Court Act and the Practice Act which have been quoted. This appeal was allowed by a proviso at the end of section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as follows:

‘Provided, that either party to such arbitration shall have the right to appeal from such report or award of the arbitrators to the circuit court or the court that apppointed the third arbitrator of the county where the injury occurred by filing a petition in such court within twenty days after the filing of the report of the arbitrators, and upon filing a good and sufficient bond, in the discretion of the court, and upon such appeal the questions in dispute shall be heard de novo, and either party may have a jury upon filing a written demand therefor with his petition.’ Laws 1911, p. 321.

We have held that the term ‘suit or proceeding a law or in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Superior Coal Co. v. O'Brien
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • September 14, 1943
    ......People v. Gale, 339 Ill. 162, 171 N.E. 186; Christensen v. Bartelmann Co., 273 Ill. 346, 112 N.E. 686;Lavin v. Wells Bros. Co., 272 Ill. 609, 112 N.E. 271. ......
  • Phelps v. Bd. of Appeals of City of Chicago
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • June 10, 1927
    ......Douglas v. Hutchinson, 183 Ill. 323, 55 N. E. 628;Christensen v. Bartelmann Co., 273 Ill. 346, 112 N. E. 686;Lavin v. Wells Bros. Co., 272 Ill. 609, 112 N. E. ......
  • Kane v. Hudson
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • June 9, 1916
    ......McDole, 247 Ill. 34, 93 N. E. 86;Willis v. Zorger, 258 Ill. 574, 101 N. E. 963;Christensen" v. Christensen, 265 Ill. 170, 106 N. E. 627;Lonergan v. Daily, 266 Ill. 189, 107 N. E. 460.    \xC2"......
  • Scheuer v. Johns-Manville Products Corp., Gen. No. 10044.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • February 3, 1947
    ......People v. Gale [339 Ill. 162, 171 N.E. 186];Christensen v. Bartelmann Co. [273 Ill. 346, 112 N.E. 686]; Lavin v. Wells Bros. Co. [272 Ill. 609, 112 N.E. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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