Johns-Manville, Inc. v. Thrane

• Decision Date: 26 October 1923
• Docket Number: 11,760
• Citation: 141 N.E. 229,80 Ind.App. 432
• Parties: JOHNS-MANVILLE, INCORPORATED, v. THRANE ET AL
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

141 N.E. 229

80 Ind.App. 432

JOHNS-MANVILLE, INCORPORATED, v. THRANE ET AL

No. 11,760

Court of Appeals of Indiana

October 26, 1923

From the Industrial Board of Indiana.

Proceedings for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Lillie Thrane and others against Johns-Manville Company Incorporated. From an award for claimant, the defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Turner Adams, Merrell & Locke and Paul E. Beam, for appellant.

Fred Barnett and I. Wesley Baker, for appellees.

OPINION

NICHOLS, J.

Appeal from an award of the Industrial Board in a proceeding by appellees under the provisions of the Indiana Workmen's Compensation Act, (Acts 1915 p. 392, § 8020l et seq. Burns' Supp. 1921) in which appellees made claim for compensation on account of fatal injury by accident sustained on November 29, 1922, by one Eric Thrane, upon whom appellees were wholly dependent.

Appellant resisted said claim and at the hearing moved that it be dismissed upon the ground that the Industrial Board of Indiana does not have jurisdiction, because the deceased was a resident of Illinois and the contract of employment between him and appellant was entered into in that state, that at the time of the alleged fatal injuries he was working under such contract of employment, and at the time was only temporarily in Indiana, engaged in performing work for the appellant. The motion to dismiss was overruled and there was an award in favor of appellee. These rulings of the Industrial Board are assigned as error and no other question is presented for our consideration.

The Industrial Board found, with other facts, that at the time of the fatal accident, said Thrane was an Indiana employe, and appellant was an Indiana employer; that appellant was a foreign corporation organized and existing under the laws of New York, but that at the time of the injury, and prior thereto, appellant was localized in this state for the purpose of conducting its business and had complied with the statutes of this state regulating the admission of foreign corporations into the state for the purpose of conducting their business for profit; that at said time appellant was pursuing and conducting its business in the city of Rochester, Indiana, performing work under a contract with Armour and Company of Chicago, Illinois; that on December 1, 1922, appellant requested of the Industrial Board and procured from it a certificate to said Armour and Company that appellant had complied with § 68 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, Acts 1915 p. 392, supra, by insuring its compensation liability covering the work it was performing for said Armour and Company.

That the rights and duties provided for by the Indiana Workmen's Compensation Act (Acts 1915 p. 392 supra) as between employer and employe are contractual, as contended by appellant, is well sustained by authority. §§ 2 and 4, Acts 1915 p. 392, supra, as amended by Acts 1917 p. 673; Carl Hagenbeck, etc., Shows Co. v. Leppert (1917), 66 Ind.App. 261, 117 N.E. 531; Darsch v. Thearle Duffield, etc., Co. (1922), 77 Ind.App. 357, 133 N.E. 525; Rogers v. Rogers (1919), 70 Ind.App. 659, 122 N.E. 778, 780. We can just as readily concede appellant's further contention that the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Acts 1915 p. 392, supra) are binding only as a part of contracts of employment made in Indiana, or made in contemplation of performance in Indiana. 6 R. C. L. 855; 2 Elliott, Contracts §§ 1113-19; Hagenback, etc., Show Co. v. Randall (1920), 75 Ind.App. 417, 126 N.E. 501; Darsch v. Thearle Duffield, etc., Co., supra. Affirmatively speaking, we hold that a contract made in one state in contemplation of performance in another, is subject to the law of the state in which it is to be performed. 13 C. J. 249. And a contract of employment...