Lilly v. Moberly Wholesale Grocery Co.
| Decision Date | 01 December 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 17016.,17016. |
| Citation | 32 S.W.2d 1099 |
| Parties | LILLY v. MOBERLY WHOLESALE GROCERY CO. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Randolph County.
"Not to be officially published."
Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Chester T. Lilly, claimant, opposed by the Moberly Wholesale Grocery Company, employer. From a judgment affirming an award in favor of the employer and insurer, the claimant appeals.
Affirmed.
Hammett & Holman, of Moberly, for appellant.
Hunter & Chamier, of Moberly, for respondent.
On the 2d day of March, 1928, appellant filed with the Workmen's Compensation Commission a claim for compensation for injury sustained by him, the pertinent parts of which are that on the 21st day of October, 1927, he was an employee of defendant at Moberly, Mo., earning an average weekly wage of $22.50, that the injury received made necessary the amputation of the right arm between the shoulder and elbow, and that the total compensation paid to that date was $3,300.
The employer answered, denying generally the statements contained in the employee's claim, and specifically denied that the injury to plaintiff's elbow, causing amputation of the arm, was due to any alleged accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.
The claim was heard on April 23, 1928, before Commissioner Phillips, who made an award in favor of appellant for medical aid and permanent partial disability in the sum of $15 a week for 74.87 weeks, to begin on October 21, 1927. Application for review by the full commission of the award and order was made by respondent, and like application was also made by appellant. On August 17, 1928, the full commission reviewed the findings, statements, and rulings and award, and ordered the same set aside, and entered an award in favor of the employer and insurer and against the employee, finding that the employee's disability was not caused by an accident arising out of or in the course of his employment. An appeal therefrom to the circuit court of Randolph county was entered upon the application and notice of appellant. In February, 1930, the said circuit court rendered its judgment affirming the final award of the full commission of the Workmen's Compensation Commission.
Motion for new trial and in arrest of judgment were timely filed, overruled, and the plaintiff appealed.
Respondent has called attention to the fact that appellant did not file bill of exceptions, and contends...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sayles v. Kansas City Structural Steel Co.
...Pub. Serv. Comm., 181 S.W. 396; Brocco v. May Dept. Stores, 22 S.W.2d 832; Dougherty v. Manhattan Mfg. Co., 29 S.W.2d 126; Lilly v. Moberly, etc., Co., 32 S.W.2d 1099. above four cases overruled. State ex rel. May Dept. Stores Co. v. Haid, 38 S.W.2d 44; State ex rel. Midwest Pipe Co. v. Hai......
-
State ex rel. Blackmer & Post Pipe Co. v. Rosskopf
... ... Dougherty v. Manhattan Rubber Mfg. Co., 29 S.W.2d ... 126; Lilly v. Moberly Wholesale Grocery Co., 32 ... S.W.2d 1099. (The last two were ... ...
-
State ex rel. May Department Stores Co. v. Haid
... ... compensation case of Lilly v. Moberly Wholesale Grocery ... Co., 32 S.W.2d 1099, both of which ... ...
-
State ex rel. Midwest Pipe & Supply Co. v. Haid
... ... May Dept ... Stores Co., 22 S.W.2d 832; Lillie v. Wholesale ... Grocery Co., 32 S.W.2d 1099; State ex rel. v ... Trimble, 318 Mo ... in the case of Lilly v. Moberly Wholesale Grocery ... Co., 32 S.W.2d 1099, both of said ... ...