Maryland Cas. Co. v. England

• Decision Date: 14 August 1925
• Docket Number: 4718.
• Citation: 129 S.E. 75,160 Ga. 810
• Parties: MARYLAND CASUALTY CO ET AL. v. ENGLAND.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

129 S.E. 75

160 Ga. 810

MARYLAND CASUALTY CO ET AL. v. ENGLAND.

No. 4718.

Supreme Court of Georgia

August 14, 1925

Syllabus by the Court.

Upon an appeal to the superior court from any final award or any other final decision of the Industrial Commission, the findings of fact made by the Commission within its power are in the absence of fraud, conclusive.

Where upon the hearing of such appeal the finding of the Commission is attacked upon all the grounds specified in section 59 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and where it does not appear from the record that the finding is subject to any one of said attacks, but the judge of the superior court in passing upon the appeal erroneously sets aside the finding upon one of the grounds of attack, and where a writ of error is sued out to the Court of Appeals to review the judgment of the superior court, the appellate court, in reviewing said judgment, should not affirm that judgment upon the theory of its being the first grant of a new trial, although the finding of the Commission on the facts was not as a matter of law demanded, but was within the power of the Commission, was free from fraud, and was supported by the evidence.

Certified Question from Court of Appeals.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Lillie England claimant, opposed by the Maryland Casualty Company, the insurer, and another. Finding of the Industrial Commission was reversed by the Superior Court, and the insurer brought error to the Court of Appeals, which certified question to the Supreme Court. Question answered.

Geo. G Glenn, and John C. Mitchell, both of Dalton, for plaintiff in error.

Gordon Mann and W. E. Mann, both of Dalton, for defendant in error.

HINES J.

Section 57 of the Workmen's Compensation Act provides for the hearing of the parties on any issue by the Commission or any of its members. If an award is not made by the full Commission section 58 of this act provides for a review of the award by the full Commission. Section 59 of this act provides "That any award of the Commission provided for in section 57 with respect to which no application for a review thereof be filed in due time or an award of the Commission upon such review as provided in section 58 shall, in either event, as the case may be, and subject to the other provisions of this act, be a final award and shall be conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact; but either party to the dispute may, within thirty days from the date of any final award, or within thirty days from the date of any other final order or judgment of said commission, but not thereafter, appeal from the decision in such final award or from any other final decision of said Commission to the superior court of the county in which the injury occurred, or if the injury occurred without the state then to the superior court of the county in which the original hearing was had in the manner" pointed out in this section; and that upon such appeal, "The findings of fact made by the Commission within its power shall in the absence of fraud be conclusive, but upon such hearing the court shall set aside said order or decree of the Industrial Commission if it be found: (1) That the Industrial Commission acted without or in excess of its powers. (2) That the order or decree was procured by fraud. (3) That the...