Eastern Coal Corp. v. Morris

Decision Date24 February 1956
Citation287 S.W.2d 603
PartiesEASTERN COAL CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Henry MORRIS et al., etc., Appellees.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

Baird & Hays, William J. Baird, Pikeville, for appellant.

Lay & Knuckles, Pineville, M. E. Boiarsky, R. L. Theibert, Charleston, W. Va., for appellees.

CAMMACK, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment affirming an award of the Workmen's Compensation Board to Henry Morris for permanent total disability caused by the disease of silicosis.

The appellant, Eastern Coal Corporation, contends that the entire proceeding is void for want of jurisdiction over the subject matter, because it had not accepted the provisions of the Compensation Act, with respect to silicosis, until after Morris terminated his employment with the Corporation. Both parties agree that the Act is elective and neither the employer nor the employee is covered until both voluntarily accept the Act. Morris urges, however, that the appellant is estopped to attack jurisdiction after defending the case on its merits, and relies upon the following stipulation of the parties:

'Both plaintiff and defendant were operating under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law of Kentucky as respects claims for silicosis.'

Morris argues that, since jurisdiction of this general class of cases is conferred by untrue. In disposing of the question, we obtained by securing jurisdiction of the person.

While jurisdiction of the person is undisputed in this case, that fact does not remove the necessity that jurisdiction of the subject matter must be had also. Since the provisions of the Act with respect to silicosis are elective, no jurisdiction of the subject matter existed if the parties had not elected to come under it. Hence, the question is simply whether a party can contradict the stipulated statements when the latter relate to jurisdiction of the subject matter.

The identical question was raised in Partin's Adm'r v. Black Mountain Corporation, 237 Ky. 556, 36 S.W.2d 1, 2. In that case, as herein, the stipulation that the parties were operating under the Workmen's Compensation Act was alleged to be unture. In disposing of the question, we said:

'* * * The stipulation that Partin was working under the provisions of the act did not give the board jurisdiction if, in fact, the stipulation was untrue. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the agreement of parties. * * *'

Hence, we recognized that stipulations pertaining to jurisdictional facts do...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Dick v. International Harvester Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • January 24, 1958
    ...silicosis was not compensable if the parties had not complied. Nolley v. Diamond Coal Co., 291 Ky. 849, 165 S.W.2d 841; Eastern Coal Corp. v. Morris, Ky., 287 S.W.2d 603. It is agreed in this case that there was no written application or notice of election filed with the We have a clear cas......
  • Huntsman v. Manning
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • August 22, 2014
    ...matter jurisdiction over this matter. Relying on Partin's Adm'r v. Black Mountain Corp., 36 S.W.2d 1 (Ky. 1930), and Eastern Coal Corp. v. Morris, 287 S.W.2d 603 (Ky. 1956), Huntsman argues parties cannot stipulate jurisdiction. These cases, however, can be distinguished from the instant ma......
  • SR v. Manning
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • June 11, 2015
    ...during the course of his employment. ...Relying on Partin's Adm'r v. Black Mountain Corp., 36 S.W.2d 1 (Ky.1930), and Eastern Coal Corp. v. Morris, 287 S.W.2d 603 (Ky.1956), Huntsman argues parties cannot stipulate jurisdiction. These cases, however, can be distinguished from the instant ma......

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