Lavin v. Wells Bros. Co.

• Citation: 112 N.E. 271,272 Ill. 609
• Decision Date: 20 April 1916
• Docket Number: No. 10462.,10462.
• Parties: LAVIN v. WELLS BROS. CO.
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

272 Ill. 609

112 N.E. 271

LAVIN

v.WELLS BROS. CO.

No. 10462.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 20, 1916.

Error to Branch D Appellate Court, First District, on Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; Clarence N. Goodwin, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1911 by Martin Lavin, administrator, to recover compensation for the death of Thomas Lavin, opposed by the Wells Bros. Company, the employer. To review a judgment of the Appellate Court, dismissing the employer's appeal from the order of the superior court awarding compensation, the employer brings certiorari. Judgment of the Appellate Court reversed, and cause remanded to that court, with directions.F. J. Canty, E. A. Zimmerman, and R. P. Garrett, all of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Gorman, Pollock & Livingston, of Chicago, for defendant in error.

CARTWRIGHT, J.

Thomas Lavin was employed by the Wells Bros. Company, a corporation, and suffered injuries from which he died on January 16, 1913. Martin Lavin, administrator of his estate, applied to the superior court of Cook county for the appointment of the third arbitrator to determine the question of his right to compensation, and the amount of the same, under the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1911. The court appointed an arbitrator and an award was made, from which the corporation appealed to the court. The cause was tried by the court without a jury, and there was a finding for the administrator and an order that the corporation should pay to him $3,500, in equal weekly installments of $8.61. From that judgment the corporation was allowed and perfected an appeal to the Appellate Court for the First District. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the law did not allow an appeal from the judgment and therefore the court had no jurisdiction.The record has been brought to this court by writ of certiorari.

The Appellate Court Act and the Practice Act provide for appeals from final judgments, orders, or decrees in any suit or proceeding at law or in chancery, and the question whether an appeal will lie from the judgment of a court under the Workmen's Compensation Act depends upon whether the proceeding in the court is a suit or proceeding at law or in chancery. The term ‘suit or proceeding at law or in chancery’ includes every claim or demand in a court of justice which was known at the adoption of our Constitution as an action at law or a suit in chancery, and also all actions since provided for in which personal or property rights are involved of the same nature as those previously enforced by actions at law or in chancery, but does not include special statutory proceedings involving rights and providing remedies which are not of the kind previously enforced either at law or in chancery. Douglas v. Hutchinson, 183 Ill. 323, 55 N. E. 628. There was previous to the enactment of the statute in question a liability of the employer to his employé for negligence of the employer resulting in injury and...