Fruit v. Indus. Bd.
| Decision Date | 20 June 1918 |
| Docket Number | No. 11829.,11829. |
| Citation | 284 Ill. 154,119 N.E. 931 |
| Parties | FRUIT v. INDUSTRIAL BOARD et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Macon County; W. K. Whitfield, Judge.
Proceedings by John W. Green for workmen's compensation, opposed by Logan B. Fruit, employer. To review a judgment of the circuit court quashing on certiorari the decision of the Industrial Board awarding compensation, upon order certifying the case as proper to be reviewed by the Supreme Court, the applicant brings error. Affirmed.
Chester A. Smith, of Decatur, for plaintiff in error.
Jack & Boggess, of Decatur, for defendant in error.
Logan B. Fruit, defendant in error, was engaged in the retail coal business in the city of Decatur. He purchased coal by the carload and sold it by the ton, charging to his customers $2.50 per ton at his place of business, where the customers did their own hauling to their bins, and $3 per ton where he delivered it to the customers' bins; the extra 50 cents per ton being for the hauling and delivery of the coal. In connection with his coal business he owned and used several teams, cared for and fed by the teamsters who delivered the coal for him. When defendant in error was out of coal at his coalyard, in order to keep his teams busy, he would send them to the local mines and have his deliveries of coal made from the mines to his customers. In addition to his coal business he contracted with a Decatur wholesale grocery firm, under which he made deliveries of groceries to their customers. Defendant in error also had his teamsters do other hauling for himself in connection with his business, other than the hauling of coal. Plaintiff in error was employed in August, 1914, by the defendant in error as one of his teamsters to haul and deliver coal to his customers, and continued to work for him up to January 1, 1915, at $2 per day or $12 per week. On said latter date plaintiff in error and E. M. Crowell, a fellow workman, undertook to move some hay for defendant in error, at his request, from the hay barn he had been using in his business to another barn to which he was moving his teams. While loading the hay on the wagon two bales fell therefrom, knocking Green from the wagon to the frozen ground. He was picked up unconscious, taken to a shop near by, given some temporary treatment, and was later carried to his home and given medical attention. A contused wound was found on his head, and his back was injured. He was confined to his home until March 2 and was under the doctor's care until July 2, 1915. He was unconscious for five or six days, and the record evidence shows that he was seriously injured by the fall. Defendant in error paid him $6 a week for some time after the injury and until he had paid him a total of $123. On his refusal to continue the payments plaintiff in error served a demand upon him in writing, as provided by the Workmen's Compensation Act. The arbitration committee found that he was totally incapacitated from work for a period of 46 weeks, and that he was entitled to the sum of $6 a week from the eighth day after the injury to the time of the hearing, or a total of $276, of which there was a balance due of $153, and that he was entitled to the further compensation of $3 a week for a period of 370 weeks, and to a physician's bill of $22. Upon appeal to the Industrial Board his compensation was fixed at $6 a week for 20 weeks and $3 a week for 396 weeks; the decision of the Industrial Board being entered July 26, 1916. Defendant in error used out a writ of certiorari from the circuit court of Macon county to review the decision of the Industrial Board. That court overruled the decision of the board and quashed the proceedings and certified that the case is one proper to be reviewed by this court, and the plaintiff in error has sued out this writ.
Plaintiff in error filed a motion in the circuit court to quash the alias writ of certiorari, and among the grounds therefor insisted that the proceeding for certiorari was not commenced within 20 days after the receipt of the decision of the Industrial Board by defendant in error, as provided by statute, and that the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fox Park Timber Co. v. Baker
... ... Marshall (Okla.) 5 P.2d 149; Brink ... Express Co. v. Foster (Okla.) 7 P.2d 142; Holland v ... Drilling Co. (Okla.) 27 P.2d 591; Fruit v ... Industrial Board (Ill.) 119 N.E. 931. Logs are the raw ... material, not the manufactured product of the tie industry ... Hardwood Co ... ...
-
Cinofsky v. Indus. Comm'n
...1916E. 329, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 1,Hochspeier v. Industrial Board, 278 Ill. 523, 116 N. E. 121, L. R. A. 1918F, 227, and Fruit v. Industrial Board, 284 Ill. 154, 119 N. E. 931. Nothing is said in those cases, in our judgment, which upholds the argument of counsel for plaintiffs in error that pl......
-
Oriental Laundry Co. v. Indus. Comm'n
...The question as to the construction of the statute on this point has not been directly decided by this court. In Fruit v. Industrial Board, 284, Ill. 154, 119 N. E. 931, the question was indirectly under consideration, and the fair inference from the decision is that an alias writ would be ......
-
Mattoon Clear Water Co. v. Indus. Comm'n
...were imposed. We held in Hochspeier v. Industrial Board, 278 Ill. 523, 116 N. E. 121, L. R. A. 1918F, 227, and in Fruit v. Industrial Board, 284 Ill. 154, 119 N. E. 931, that the hauling of commodities as a mere incident to the business of the employer does not constitute the employer a car......