Kingan and Company, Limited v. Ossam
| Decision Date | 17 May 1921 |
| Docket Number | Appellate Court 10,270 |
| Citation | 131 N.E. 81,190 Ind. 554 |
| Parties | Kingan and Company, Limited, v. Ossam |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Industrial Board of Indiana.
Proceedings for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Charles Ossam against Kingan and Company, Limited. From an award for applicant, defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, which affirmed the award, and defendant petitions for transfer of the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Petition to transfer dismissed.
Harold Taylor, Jacob S. White and Burrell Wright, for appellant.
Walker & Hollett, for appellee.
The question presented is the right of transfer from the Appellate Court to the Supreme Court, upon the authority of § 1394 Burns 1914, Acts 1901 p. 565, § 10, of an appeal from an award made by the Industrial Board to the Appellate Court, authorized by § 61 Acts 1915 p. 392 § 80201 et seq. Burns' Supp. 1918, as amended, § 3, Acts 1917 p. 154, § 8020s2 Burns' Supp. 1918.
The administration of the matter in controversy was begun under the authority of § 58 of the Indiana Workmen's Compensation Act, Acts 1915 p. 392, supra. A hearing was had and award made by the Industrial Board under § 59, and a review thereof under § 60 of said act supra, which was followed by a review, hearing and award by the Industrial Board under § 45 of the act, supra, from which last award the employer appealed to the Appellate Court under § 61 of said act, supra. The Appellate Court, by its decision, affirmed the award of the Industrial Board, and the employer filed its petition to transfer the matter to the Supreme Court for decision under clause 2, § 1394, supra.
The Constitution of Indiana, Art. 7, § 4, provides that, "The Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction coextensive with the limits of the state in appeals and writs of error, under such regulations and restrictions as may be prescribed by law."
The very fact that the Constitution of this state created the Supreme Court as a co-ordinate branch of the government of the state is a declaration by that instrument that the right of appeal from nisi prius courts shall and does exist; and, as construed by this court, such jurisdiction may not be taken away in all classes of cases, even though such jurisdiction shall be "under such regulations and restrictions as may be prescribed by law." This is, by virtue of its high authority--the Constitution--the general law.
Pursuant to this most general provision, which governs appeals to the Supreme Court, and "under such regulations and restrictions as may be prescribed by law," the legislature has prescribed, that appeals may be taken from the circuit and superior courts to the Supreme Court in certain matters, and under such restrictions as provided by its acts (§ 671 Burns 1914, § 632 R. S. 1881; and § 1392 Burns' Supp. 1918, Acts 1915 p. 149) which laws regulate, restrict and prescribe the right of appeal to this court, and is the general law.
It is very urgently contended by counsel for the employer that § 1394, supra, gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction in this appeal and appeals which arise by virtue of the same law where its ruling precedents have been contravened by an opinion of the Appellate Court, or when a new question of law has been decided erroneously by the Appellate Court, as in any other kind of a case that may come before the Appellate Court.
This law now under consideration--the Workmen's Compensation Act, supra--pronounces what citizens of this state must do, who come within the provisions, in the event of personal injury or death by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment. The Industrial Board is the administration agency of the state, to aid within the definitions and limitations of the act, in its administration. Such administration is to have the assistance of the Appellate Court as provided by § 61, supra, of this act, in matters of law. The right of appeal given by said § 61 is special, applying to matters coming solely within the purview of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
It has been decided by this court that the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court cannot entirely be taken away from it; yet it is recognized that its jurisdiction may not only be enlarged, but that it may be contracted. Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. v. Watkins (1902), 157 Ind. 600, 62 N.E. 443.
Even though it be conceded that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the parties here in question and of other appeals of the same character, upon petitions to transfer, as provided in clause 2, § 1394, supra, and that such jurisdiction was assumed under the general law, the court is confronted by the special provision in the act itself...
To continue reading
Request your trial