Elsas v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 7567.
| Decision Date | 24 January 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 7567.,7567. |
| Citation | 38 F.2d 303 |
| Parties | ELSAS v. MONTGOMERY ELEVATOR CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Lathrop, Crane, Reynolds, Sawyer & Mersereau, of Kansas City, Mo., for appellants.
Cleary & Barnett and Denton Dunn, all of Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.
This is a case where an employer, subject to the Workmen's Compensation Law of the State of Missouri, has sought a review by this court of certain fundamental and jurisdictional questions arising from the acts of the administrative tribunal created by said law.
It is asserted that there is a diversity of citizenship, that the controversy is a suit of a civil nature, and that therefore the defendant or employer is entitled to remove same from a state to the national court.
The case is an important one, because it necessarily deals with the fundamental rights of the parties, and, at the same time, raises acutely a question of comity and conflict of jurisdictions.
The system of laws, providing for Workmen's Compensation in the state of Missouri, was approved April 30, 1925, and may be found in the Session Acts of that year at page 375. Said act, as in the case of all such enactments, was a compromise between employers and employees. Theretofore the employer had been burdened with heavy judgments, and the employee, in case of injury, had been confronted with manifold common-law defenses. To the end that there might be peace between them, the employer was willing to increase the number of cases of liability in favor of its employees, if in turn it might have a limitation on the amount of each claim.
The employee was willing to accept a sum certain, though not so much, rather than take his chances in litigation with its uncertainties and delays. The law was beneficial and advantageous to both sides, but either had a right to reject it. In the latter event, said law limited rights previously enjoyed in case of litigation.
The act in question prescribes the measure of compensation and the circumstances under which it is to be made. The law would be ineffective without instrumentalities of enforcement. It established, therefore, administrative machinery for applying the statutory measure to the facts of each particular case. It afforded to each, in case of disagreement, a hearing before an administrative tribunal. The determination of such tribunal in each case is subject to judicial review only upon certain specified fundamental and jurisdictional questions.
By section 44 of the act either party within the law, if dissatisfied with the award of the administrative tribunal, could prosecute an appeal "to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collins v. Public Service Commission of Missouri
...hence, are not removable to a Federal Court. Snook v. Industrial Commission of Illinois, D.C. Ill., 9 F.Supp. 26; Elsas v. Montgomery Elevator Co., D.C.Mo., 38 F.2d 303; Decker v. Spicer Manufacturing Co., D.C. Ohio, 101 F.Supp. 207; Flowers v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 6 Cir., 163 F.2d ......
-
Flowers v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
...of a civil nature, at law or in equity, of which the district court has jurisdiction is based upon the rulings in Elsas v. Montgomery Elevator Company, D.C.W.D.Mo., 38 F.2d 303, and Snook v. Industrial Commission of Illinois, D.C.E.D.Ill., 9 F.Supp. 26. These rulings were based upon the par......
-
McFall v. Barton-Mansfield Co.
...of the State court, it cannot now renounce that jurisdiction and invoke the paramount jurisdiction of the national court. [Elsas v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 38 F.2d 303.] rule against defendant's objections to the validity of the act. It is suggested by respondent that since the constitutio......
-
Fresquez v. Farnsworth & Chambers Company
...30 F.Supp. 558; Barrett v. Consolidated Coal Co., D.C., 65 F.Supp. 291. Removability was denied in certain cases. Elsas v. Montgomery Elevator Co., D.C., 38 F.2d 303; Snook v. Industrial Commission of Illinois, D.C., 9 F.Supp. 26; Decker v. Spicer Manufacturing Division of Dana Corp., D.C.,......