Inter-Urban Const. Co. v. Industrial Commission

• Decision Date: 11 June 1921
• Docket Number: 3643
• Citation: 58 Utah 310,199 P. 157
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: INTER-URBAN CONST. CO. et al. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al

199 P. 157

58 Utah 310

INTER-URBAN CONST. CO. et al. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al

No. 3643

Supreme Court of Utah

June 11, 1921

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Law by the Industrial Commission in connection with the death of William Q. Lindsay, employee, opposed by Inter-Urban Construction Company, employer, and the Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corporation, Limited, insurance carrier. An award was made requiring payment into the state insurance fund, and the employer and insurance carrier bring certiorari.

ORDER VACATED and set aside.

James H. Wolfe, of Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs.

Harvey H. Cluff, Atty. Gen., and John Robert Robinson, Asst. Atty Gen., for defendants.

CORFMAN C. J. WEBER, GIDEON, THURMAN, and FRICK, JJ., concur.

OPINION

CORFMAN, C. J.

On August 2, 1917, William Q. Lindsay was killed at Pleasant Green, Utah in an accident arising out of or in the course of his employment with the plaintiff Inter-Urban Construction Company, for whom the plaintiff the Ocean Accident &amp Guarantee Corporation, Limited, was the insurance carrier under our Industrial Act.

On February 7, 1921, the Industrial Commission held a hearing upon the application of the state insurance fund to determine whether or not there were any dependents of the said William Q. Lindsay, and if not, whether, under Comp. Laws Utah 1917, § 3140, subd. 1, the employer, Inter-Urban Construction Company, or its said insurance carrier should pay into the state insurance fund the sum of $ 750 as in said act provided for in the absence of any dependents.

After said hearing the Commission made a finding under date of February 9, 1921, that there were no dependents, and decreed that the plaintiffs should pay into the state insurance fund the sum of $ 750. On February 28, 1921, the plaintiffs petitioned for a rehearing before the Commission, which was on March 16, 1921, denied. Thereupon the plaintiffs in the usual way provided for by our statutes brought the said orders of the Commission to this court for review.

They assert that the said order of the Commission requiring payment of $ 750 into the state insurance fund was outside the powers of the Commission, therefore illegal, for the following reasons: (1) That the said statute requiring payment of $ 750 into the state insurance fund is unconstitutional in that: (a) It denies the plaintiffs the equal protection of the law; (b) is a taking of property without due process of law. (2) There was no evidence to support the finding of the Commission that there are no dependents. (3) The statutes of limitations had run against the claim of the state insurance fund if any such claim ever legally existed.

The question raised by the plaintiffs as to the constitutionality of the statute under which the Commission acted in ordering the payment of the $ 750 have been passed upon and determined by this court in the very recently written opinion of Mr. Justice Thurman in the case of Salt Lake City v. Industrial Com., 58 Utah 314, 199 P. 152. Although the present case had its origin in 1917, before, and the Salt Lake City case after, the statute was amended in 1919 (Laws 1919, c. 63), what is there said with respect to the constitutionality of the statute applies with equal force here and is controlling. We therefore must hold in the present case that the contention of the plaintiffs that the statute was violative of organic law has not been sustained.

Nor can we agree with the plaintiffs' contention that the evidence was insufficient to justify the Commission's finding that there are no dependents.

In the case of Utah Con. Min. Co. v. Industrial Commission, 57 Utah 279, 194 P. 657, we held that, if there were claimants, they should present their claims for compensation to the Commission within one...