Ham v. Mullins Lumber Co.
| Decision Date | 07 March 1940 |
| Docket Number | 15034. |
| Citation | 7 S.E.2d 712,193 S.C. 66 |
| Parties | HAM v. MULLINS LUMBER CO. et al. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Elliott McLain, Wardlaw & Elliott, of Columbia, for appellants.
J C. King, of Charlotte, N. C., and Woods & Woods, of Marion, for respondent.
James L. Ham,
an employee of Mullins Lumber Company, died on the 6th of August, 1937, as the result of an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment with the said company. Claim was made by Mrs. Lelia V. Ham, the widow, for compensation for herself and children, to the South Carolina Industrial Commission, within the terms and provisions of the South Carolina Workman's Compensation Act. After notice a hearing was had at Mullins, S.C., April 15, 1938, before Hon John W. Duncan, Commissioner, at which hearing the Mullins Lumber Company and its insurance carrier were represented by counsel. The Hearing Commissioner filed his opinion June 22 1938, by which he made an award in favor of plaintiff and her children.
From this award the Mullins Lumber Company and its insurance carrier, American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, asked for and were allowed a review by the Full Commission. In due time the Full Commission filed an opinion, made by the majority thereof, reversing the award made by the Hearing Commissioner. From this action of the Full Commission, the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Common Pleas for Marion County. The appeal was heard by Judge Dennis, who in due time filed an opinion by which he reversed the opinion and award of the Full Commission and reinstated the opinion and award of the Hearing Commissioner.
From this Order comes the appeal of the defendants to this Court.
We have reviewed with care the well considered and logically stated order of Judge Dennis, and are in full accord with its findings and conclusions, and affirm the order.
By one of their exceptions appellants charge error to the Circuit Judge in holding that the South Carolina Industrial Commission should take jurisdiction of the case. The error being that he should have held to the contrary because of the fact that the North Carolina Industrial Commission had already taken jurisdiction of the case and had it under consideration.
We fail to find that Judge Dennis made the holding challenged in the foregoing exception. Indeed, it does not appear that that issue was ever brought to his attention. Certainly it was not presented by the 22 exceptions by which the plaintiff, in her appeal from the opinion and award of the Full Commission, charged error to that opinion; and it is equally certain that the appellants from Judge Dennis' order did not ask that he sustain the opinion and award of the Full Commission on the ground stated in the above exception.
However, lest there grow up some confusion as to the attitude of this Court on this suggested question, it is perhaps well to state here that we do not think the fact that the claimant had filed her claim with the North Carolina Industrial Commission before filing it with the South Carolina Industrial Commission deprived the South Carolina Industrial Commission of jurisdiction to hear the case. She filed her claim with the North Carolina Industrial Commission because of receipt of a statement made by the South Carolina Industrial Commission which led her to believe that they would not consider her claim. Later she formally withdrew the case from the North Carolina Industrial Commission by the action of her attorneys, who said in their letter of March 11, 1938:
In re: Docket No. 7754
James L. Ham, Deceased, v. Mullins
Lumber Company, Mullins, S.C.
This is to advise you that the plaintiff in the above case withdraws the request of hearing before the N. C. Commission, notice of which hearing has been received and set for March 18, 1938.
We have received copies of letters from the South Carolina Industrial Commission indicating that the Mullins Lumber Company had elected to come under the South Carolina Act. We, therefore, think it would be unnecessary at this time to try this case before the North Carolina Commission, and we are proceeding to request a hearing before the South Carolina Commission.
Yours very truly,
Britt & Britt
By: J. C. King."
On October 19, 1938, they wrote:
Docket 7754
Mrs. Lelia V. Ham (widow) etc., v. Mullins Lumber Co.
"Gentlemen:
This will acknowledge receipt of yours of October 18, 1938 setting the above case for hearing at Lumberton, on October 26, 1938, at 2 p.m., and after talking to Judge Varser and learning...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cokeley v. Robert Lee, Inc.
... ... Hammond-Brown-Jennings Company, 190 S.C. 425, 3 S.E.2d ... 492; Bannister v. Shepherd, 191 S.C. 165, 4 S.E.2d ... 7; Ham v. Mullins Lumber Company, 193 S.C. 66, 7 ... S.E.2d 712; Briney v. Hopper Construction Company, ... 146 Kan. 927, 73 P.2d 1110; Baker v. Graniteville ... ...
-
Tedars v. Savannah River Veneer Co.
...tenet of interpretation that the overall intention of the compensation law is the inclusion of employees, not their exclusion (Ham v. Mullins Lumber Co., supra, and Yeomans Anheuser-Busch, also supra); but the Legislature has by the enactment of section 36 (1942 Code, section 7035-39) too c......
-
Green v. City of Bennettsville
... ... or speculation." ... In the ... still more recent case of Ham v. Mullins Lumber ... Company, 193 S.C. 66, 7 S.E.2d 712, reference is made in ... the order of the Circuit Judge, which was approved by the ... Supreme ... ...
-
Simpkins v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.
...of authority is necessary. The following excerpt establishes another rule: "It was also said in the last mentioned decision of this Court, the Ham case, that the basic purpose of Compensation Act is the inclusion of employers and employees, and not their exclusion; and we add that doubts of......