Dyer v. Indus. Comm'n
| Decision Date | 09 October 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 23450.,23450. |
| Citation | 4 N.E.2d 82,364 Ill. 161 |
| Parties | DYER et al. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Putnam County; Henry J. Ingram, Judge.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Cherillo Ricci, employee, opposed by L. B. Dyer and others. A judgment of the Circuit Court reversed the award of the Industrial Commission, and Cherillo Ricci brings error.
Judgment reversed, and decision and award of Industrial Commission confirmed.C. N. Hollerich, of Spring Valley, for plaintiff in error.
Dyer & Dyer, of Hoopeston, for defendants in error.
The circuit court of Putnam county vacated an order of the Industrial Commission requiring L. B. Dyer and the F. W. Dyer Construction Company to pay Cherillo Ricci a balance of $819 due under a settlement contract made pursuant to the Workmen's Compensation Act (Smith-Hurd Ann.St c. 48, § 138 et seq.), together with a penalty of 50 per cent. of said sum for unreasonable delay in payment, as provided for by paragraph (k) of section 19 of said act (Smith-Hurd Ann.St. c. 48, § 156(k). The case is brought here by writ of error.
On September 20, 1930, Cherillo Ricci sustained accidental injuries while in the employ of the construction company, for which he filed an application for adjustment of claim for compensation. Due notice thereof was given the construction company and also the New York Indemnity Company, the insurer. Notices of postponed hearings were given the parties. Final hearing on the application was never had because of representations made that negotiations were being carried on between the parties for a settlement. On July 6, 1931, a settlement agreement was entered into between the applicant and the construction company whereby the applicant was to receive $3,065.40 in weekly installments. The agreement was in writing, and was entered into on behalf of the construction company by an attorney representing the indemnity company and its assignee. It was presented to and approved by the Industrial Commission on July 9. Regular payments were made pursuant to said agreement until the sum of $2,246.40 had been paid. Thereafter no payments were made, and the insurance companies became insolvent. The construction company was notified of the default, and refused to make payments on the ground that it had not executed the settlement agreement, but that it had been executed by the indemnity company in the name of the construction company without authority. Ricci then filed a petition with the Industrial Commission asking for an order for the payment of the sums in default, together with the penalty provided by statute. The commission entered an order pursuant to the prayer of the petition, and the construction company caused the order to be reviewed by the circuit court on certiorari. That court reversed the finding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Waukegan v. Pollution Control Bd.
...upheld penalties imposed by the Commission. See Board of Education v. Industrial Comm., 351 Ill. 128, 184 N.E. 202; Dyer v. Industrial Comm., 364 Ill. 161, 4 N.E.2d 82. We have already noted, in comments quoted from Cooper and Davis, the importance given by courts to the presence or absence......
-
Mossman v. Chicago & Southern Air Lines
... ... 71 C. J. 941, sec. 699; Federated Metals ... Corp. v. Boyko, 11 N.J. M. 807, 168 A. 672; Dyer v ... Industrial Commission, 364 Ill. 131, 4 N.E.2d 82; ... Centralia Coal Co. v. Industrial ... ...
-
Collier v. Wagner Castings Co.
...in lieu of a claim and approved by the Industrial Commission, giving that settlement the status of an award (Dyer v. Industrial Com. (1936), 364 Ill. 161, 163, 4 N.E.2d 82, Ahlers v. Sears Roebuck Co. (1978), 73 Ill.2d 259, 265, 22 Ill.Dec. 731, 383 N.E.2d 207), he is now precluded from sui......
-
Fregeau v. Gillespie
...executed in lieu of a claim and approved by the Industrial Commission, giving that settlement the status of an award (Dyer v. Industrial Com. (1936), 364 Ill. 161, 163 ; Ahlers v. Sears Roebuck Co. (1978), 73 Ill.2d 259, 265 [22 Ill.Dec. 731, 383 N.E.2d 207] ), he is now precluded from suin......