Gillespie v. Vermont Hosiery & Mach. Co.

Decision Date03 May 1938
Docket NumberNo. 1647.,1647.
Citation199 A. 564
CourtVermont Supreme Court
PartiesGILLESPIE v. VERMONT HOSIERY & MACHINE CO. et al.

Appeal from Commissioner of Industries; Howard E. Armstrong, Commissioner.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Thomas J. Gillespie, claimant, opposed by the Vermont Hosiery & Machine Company, employer, and the American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, insurance carrier. From an award of the Commissioner of Industries in favor of claimant, the employer and the insurance carrier appeal, whereupon the claimant moved to dismiss the appeal.

Motion to dismiss denied; award affirmed.

Argued before POWERS, C. J., and SLACK, MOULTON, SHERBURNE, and BUTTLES, JJ.

J. Boone Wilson, Charles F. Black, and Willsie E. Brisbin, all of Burlington, for appellants. Norbert J. Towne, of Northfield, and Finn & Monti, of Barre, for appellee.

SLACK, Justice.

The defendants appeal from an award in claimant's favor under the Workmen's Compensation Act. P.L. 6480 et seq.

The first question for review concerns the validity of the appeal, which is challenged on the grounds that it was not seasonably entered and docketed with the clerk of this Court and because only one copy of such papers was filed with him. The appeal was taken and allowed December 7, 1937. No question is made but that this was done within the time required by statute. P.L. 6548, 6550. The former section provides that either party may appeal from an award of the commissioner to the county court within ten days after receiving notice of the same, and that such appeal shall be entered and docketed in that court within the time prescribed by P.L. 1475 for entering appeals to that court from a justice court, namely, within twenty-one days from the time the appeal is taken. P.L. 6550 provides that:

"If an appeal is not taken under the provisions of the second preceding section within the time limited therefor either party may, within five days thereafter, appeal to the supreme court; and the jurisdiction of such court shall be limited to a review of questions of law certified to it by the commissioner. On such appeal or on appeal taken as provided in the two preceding sections and coming to the supreme court on exceptions from the county court, the supreme court may render final judgment and award execution, or may remand the cause to the county court or to the commissioner for further findings or for new order by him in accordance with the mandate of such court."

This statute fixes no time within which an appeal taken thereunder must be entered in this Court. The claimant contends that the provisions of P.L. 1475 apply to such appeals as well as to those taken under P.L. 6548; and argues that since no other method of appeal is provided by the statutes the words "such appeal" that appear early in the second sentence of 6550 can refer only to an appeal taken in the manner prescribed in the two preceding sections. This argument is clearly without merit. Those sections have to do solely with appeals to the county court. Even a cursory reading of the entire sentence in which these words appear shows that their use is to specify in what cases this Court may do certain things, and nothing else. When words admit of but one meaning, a court is not at liberty to speculate on the intention of the legislature, or to construe an act according to its own notion of what should have been enacted. Endlich on Int. of Statutes, par. 7. This would be to substitute legislative for judicial functions, which is never permissible. Since P.L. 6550 explicitly gives the right to appeal but fails to fix the time within which the same must be entered in this Court, it will be presumed that a reasonable time was intended. What constitutes a reasonable time depends upon the circumstances in a particular case. It appears in the instant case that on December 7, 1937, the claimant filed with the commissioner a motion to dismiss this appeal; that the commissioner held a hearing thereon December 22, denied the same on January 8, furnished defendants with the appeal papers January 10, and the same were entered and docketed in this court January 19. We think that in the circumstances this appeal was entered and docketed within a reasonable time. No statute has been called to our attention that required the filing of an extra copy of the appeal papers in appeals under P. L. 6550. The motion is denied.

On Merits of the Appeal.

MOULTON, Justice.

This is an appeal by the employer and the insurance carrier from an award in favor of the claimant, made by the commissioner of industries.

From the findings of fact it is made to appear that the claimant was, at the time of the accident, employed as night watchman and caretaker at the mill of the Vermont Hosiery and Machinery Company. He was about 63 years of age, and had been for years afflicted with arteriosclerosis, which is a disease of very slow progress, and takes a long time to reach a stage which will totally and permanently disable the sufferer. In the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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