Dritch v. Ray
| Decision Date | 29 May 1944 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 29672 |
| Citation | 1944 OK 226,194 Okla. 235,149 P.2d 260 |
| Parties | DRITCH v. RAY et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION--Filing and approval of bond as jurisdictional prerequisite to proceeding in Supreme Court to review award.
The filing of a bond with the secretary of the State Industrial Commission, the approval thereof by said secretary, and the issuance of a certificate showing such filing and approval, as required by section 13363, O.S. 1931, 85 O. S. A. § 29, are jurisdictional prerequisites to the commencement of an action in the Supreme Court for review of an award made by said commission. Upon showing that such prerequisites have not been performed within the required time, an action for review of an award will be dismissed.
Original proceeding in the Supreme Court by E. Dritch, doing business as Oklahoma Iron & Metal Company, petitioner, to review an award of the State Industrial Commission in favor of Roy Ray. Proceeding dismissed.
Maris & Maris, of Ponca City, for petitioner.
Tom L. Irby, of Ponca City, and Randell S. Cobb, Atty. Gen., for respondents.
¶1 The State Industrial Commission entered an award in favor of Roy Ray. Thereafter and within the time prescribed by statute the petitioner filed this proceeding.
¶2 A motion to dismiss has been filed for the reason that no bond has been filed and approved by the secretary of the State Industrial Commission as required by section 13363, O. S. 1931, 85 O.S.A. § 29. The motion must be sustained.
¶3 We have held that the provisions of section 13363, supra, are mandatory, and that unless the bond is taken and approved by the secretary of the State Industrial Commission, this court is without jurisdiction to consider the proceeding. Petitioner urges that it has presented a sufficient bond to the State Industrial Commission, and that said commission refused to file the same and approve the bond as by law required. The nature of the surety and the sufficiency of the bond is a matter within the discretion of the State Industrial Commission, and unless the secretary has refused to perform some duty imposed by law, this court will not interfere with the exercise of this discretion. The record does not disclose that the secretary abused the discretion conferred by law. The filing and approval of said bond is a prerequisite and a condition precedent to an original proceeding in this court to review an award of the State Industrial Commission. Union
¶4 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State Indus. Court
...are jurisdictional requirements and must be performed within the 20-day period prescribed by 85 O.S.Supp.1963, § 29. Dritch v. Ray et al., 194 Okl. 235, 149 P.2d 260. The supersedeas bond filed on January 9, 1964, was posted below within 20 days from December 20, 1963, the date a copy of th......
-
Elam v. Workers' Compensation Court of State
...any question concerning the reasonableness of this requirement to obtain a judicial review." 26 P.2d at 222. See, also, Dritch v. Ray, 194 Okl. 235, 149 P.2d 260 (1944); Tidal Oil Co. v. State Ind. Comm'n., 140 Okl. 5, 282 P. 359 (1929); Blake v. Smock, 158 Okl. 204, 13 P.2d 113 The require......
-
Bledsoe v. Munsingwear Corp.
...are jurisdictional requirements and must be performed within the 20-day period prescribed by 85 O.S.Supp.1963, § 29. Dritch v. Ray, et al., 194 Okl. 235, 149 P.2d 260." The holding in Smith, supra, comports with Rules-Civil Appellate Procedure, Part III(b) Proceedings to Review Decision of ......