Kingan & Co. v. Ossam

• Decision Date: 17 May 1921
• Docket Number: No. 10270.,10270.
• Citation: 190 Ind. 554,131 N.E. 81
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court
• Parties: KINGAN & CO., LIMITED, v. OSSAM.

190 Ind. 554

131 N.E. 81

KINGAN & CO., LIMITED,

v.OSSAM.

No. 10270.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

May 17, 1921.

Appeal from Industrial Board.

Proceedings by Charles Ossam under the Workmen's Compensation Act for compensation for injuries, opposed by Kingan & Co., Limited, employer. Award by Industrial Board for employee affirmed by the Appellate Court (121 N. E. 289), and employer petitions for transfer of the appeal to the Supreme Court. Petition dismissed.

TRAVIS, J.

The question presented is the right of transfer from the Appellate Court to the Supreme Court, upon the authority of section 1394, Burns' R. S. 1914, of an appeal from an award made by the Industrial Board to the Appellate Court, authorized by section 61 of chapter 106, Acts 1915, p. 392 and as amended, chapter 63, § 3, Acts 1917, p. 154.

The administration of the matter in controversy was begun under the authority of section 58 of “The Indiana Workmen's Compensation Act,” chapter 106, Acts 1915, supra. A hearing was had, and award made by the Industrial Board under section 59, and a review thereof under section 60 of said act, chapter 106, which was followed by a review, hearing, and award by the Industrial Board under section 45 of the act, chapter 106, from which last award the employer appealed to the Appellate Court under section 61 of said act, chapter 106. 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 part 2, § 1394, supra.

The Constitution 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.” Section 164, Burns' Rev. Stat. 1914.

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 (section 671, Burns' R. S. 1914, and section 1392, Burns' Supplement 1918), 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 said section 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, 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 section 61 of this act, in matters of law. The right of appeal given by said section 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 (1901) 157 Ind. 600, 62 N. E. 443.

Even though it be conceded that ...