Integrity Mut. Cas. Co. v. Hankins

• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: BLOODWORTH, J. (after stating the foregoing facts).
• Citation: Integrity Mut. Cas. Co. v. Hankins, 126 S.E. 554, 33 Ga.App. 339 (Ga. App. 1925)
• Decision Date: 13 January 1925
• Docket Number: 15965.
• Parties: INTEGRITY MUT. CASUALTY CO. ET AL. v. HANKINS.

126 S.E. 554

33 Ga.App. 339

INTEGRITY MUT. CASUALTY CO. ET AL. v. HANKINS.

No. 15965.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, First Division

January 13, 1925

Rehearing Denied Feb. 10, 1925.

Syllabus by the Court.

Where an application for an award for damages is made to the Industrial Commission of Georgia, questions not raised when the case is heard by one of the commissioners, or on appeal to the full Commission, cannot be raised for the first time on appeal to the superior court.

"Upon a review of an award made by the Industrial Commission under the provisions of the Georgia Workmen's Compensation Act the Commission's findings of fact are, in the absence of fraud, conclusive, provided there is any evidence to support the award. Ga. L. 1920, p. 199. With respect to the sufficiency of the evidence to support it, such an award stands in this court upon the same footing as the verdict of a jury approved by the trial judge in other cases." London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Shockley, 31 Ga.App. 762(1), 122 S.E. 99.

Error from Superior Court, Jefferson County; R. N. Hardeman, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Cranston Hankins claimant, opposed by the Macon Cooperage Company, employer and the Integrity Mutual Casualty Company, insurance carrier. Award of the Industrial Commission was affirmed on appeal to superior court, and insurance carrier brings error. Affirmed.

Harry L. Greene and McDaniel & Neely, all of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Hardeman & Hardeman, of Louisville, for defendant in error.

BLOODWORTH J. (after stating the foregoing facts).

1. In the application for an appeal to the superior court the insurance carrier complains that the Commission erred in holding that although Cranston Hankins was "mentally incompetent, it was not necessary for him to prosecute his claim by or through a guardian or trustee as provided in section 47 of the Georgia Compensation Law." However, it does not appear that this question was raised on the hearing before Commissioner Kilburn, or when the case was before the full Commission; so this question is not properly before this court for consideration.

2. The only question which we are called upon to determine is whether there is sufficient competent evidence in the record "to warrant the Industrial Commission in making the order or decree complained of." In his order affirming the award of the Commission, Judge Hardeman said:

"I have reviewed carefully the record, and I am of the opinion that the facts found by the Commission are

...