Massman Const. Co. v. Nebraska Workmen's Compensation Court
| Decision Date | 17 April 1942 |
| Docket Number | 31287. |
| Citation | 3 N.W.2d 639,141 Neb. 270 |
| Parties | MASSMAN CONST. CO. v. NEBRASKA WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COURT. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Prohibition is derived from the common law and is essentially and wholly a proceeding at law. Courts of equity do not issue writs of prohibition.
2. An injunction to stay proceedings at law is not properly directed against the court or statutory tribunal before which the matter is pending, but solely against the parties to such proceeding.
3. Since such injunction acts upon the parties to the cause and not upon the court or tribunal in which such action is pending, neither the judge or judges thereof, nor the attorneys therein, should ordinarily be made parties to the suit.
4. Where the Nebraska workmen's compensation court in an action pending before it is empowered by statute to do full and complete justice to the parties involved and to the matter in dispute, courts of equity will not interfere.
Thomas E. Dunbar, of Nebraska City, for appellant.
Frank M. Coffey, Frank A. Dutton, and Carl Sanden, all of Lincoln for appellees.
Heard before SIMMONS, C. J., and ROSE, EBERLY, PAINE, CARTER, and MESSMORE, JJ.
This is an application by plaintiff, appellant herein, for a temporary and permanent injunction, and appears to have been prosecuted by it under and pursuant to sections 20-1062 to 20-1080 Comp.St. 1929, a part of our Civil Code. The action was commenced by the filing of a petition on January 4, 1939, in the district court for Otoe county by the Massman Construction Company, a corporation, as plaintiff, against "Nebraska Workmen's Compensation Court; Frank M Coffey, Presiding Judge of the Nebraska Workmen's Compensation Court; Charles E. Jackman, Judge of the Nebraska Workmen's Compensation Court; Lawrence F. Welch, Judge of the Nebraska Workmen's Compensation Court; Carl F. Belk; and Frank A. Dutton, attorney for Carl F. Belk, defendants." This petition contains copies of each of the motions, applications, petitions, answers, and special appearances hereinafter mentioned and referred to, which are expressly made a part thereof, and in addition aptly and fully alleges and pleads: (1) The official character of the defendant members of the Nebraska workmen's compensation court; (2) that the defendant Belk on or about July 23, 1935, filed in the Nebraska workmen's compensation court his petition for relief against the plaintiff herein because of certain physical injuries received by him while in the employment of plaintiff, and arising out of and in the course of the same. Issue was duly joined by plaintiff herein on the allegations of such petition and trial was had by and before one of the judges of the compensation court on August 29, 1935, and a temporary award dated October 11, 1935, was entered in favor of Belk. Plaintiff in this action paid Carl F. Belk thereon the sum of $510. Thereafter on October 18, 1935, an application for rehearing of said award before the entire court, as provided by law, was filed by the Massman Construction Company. Before such rehearing was ever had, and while said application therefor was pending, Carl F. Belk, on February 11, 1936, filed a request and motion for dismissal, and moved the Nebraska workmen's compensation court to make and enter an order in the cause for the dismissal of any and all claims or awards for benefits to which he might be otherwise entitled under the Nebraska workmen's compensation act, and acts amendatory thereof, arising out of the accident for which recovery was sought in and by the petition heretofore referred to, which was filed July 23, 1935, in said court. The Nebraska workmen's compensation court, on February 11, 1936, entered an order in the cause sustaining such motion and finally dismissing the same. Thereupon, for and in lieu of the cause of action so dismissed, defendant, Carl F. Belk, commenced an action against this plaintiff in the district court for Otoe county, Nebraska, under the Seamen's Act, 41 U.S.Stat. 1007, ch. 250, § 33, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688, alleging as the basis of his claimed recovery a claim for $30,000 damages for the same injuries on and for which such Belk originally, on July 23, 1935, filed his petition against this plaintiff in the Nebraska workmen's compensation court. Plaintiff filed its pleading in said cause taking issue with the claims of defendant Belk, and upon trial thereof in the district court a judgment was made and entered in that court in favor of this plaintiff and against Belk, and finally dismissing his cause and denying a recovery therein. On Belk's appeal taken to the supreme court of Nebraska, such judgment was in all respects affirmed (Belk v. Massman Const. Co., 133 Neb. 303, 275 N.W. 76), and upon his application to the supreme court of the United States for review a writ of certiorari was denied. 303 U.S. 641, 58 S.Ct. 647, 82 L.Ed. 1101.
It further appears that thereafter on May 25, 1938, Carl F. Belk, and his attorney, Frank A. Dutton, "did file a petition for compensation alleging the same injuries referred to in his original petition" filed in the Nebraska workmen's compensation court on July 23, 1935. Issue was joined in that cause by the plaintiff herein by its answer in writing which raised, "among other things, the defense of the statute of limitations," and challenged the jurisdiction of the Nebraska workmen's compensation court to now hear and determine said cause. But the defendants, Nebraska workmen's compensation court and the judges thereof, ordered a hearing on the above last mentioned petition and answer, to be held at the court house in Nebraska City, Otoe county, Nebraska, on January 5, 1939, commencing at 9 o'clock a. m. Further, the Nebraska workmen's compensation court and the judges thereof, defendants herein, and especially by order of Frank M. Coffey, presiding judge thereof, caused plaintiff to be served with notice of a purported rehearing in the first mentioned action for compensation, which had been finally dismissed by order of such compensation court by its order duly entered in said cause on February 11, 1936. Plaintiff avers that each of said orders last referred to were unwarranted in law and made and entered without jurisdiction, and that the Nebraska workmen's compensation court is wholly without authority or jurisdiction to proceed further therein, but will do so unless enjoined. Also, "that the defendant, Carl F. Belk, for the reasons herein stated, had abandoned his said case and claim for compensation originally filed by him, and this plaintiff is threatened with a multiplicity of suits and will be placed at great inconvenience and expense unless said Nebraska workmen's compensation court, the judges thereof, and the defendant, Carl F. Belk, and his attorney, Frank A. Dutton, are enjoined from proceeding with said rehearing." This plaintiff further avers that, by reason of the premises set forth in its said petition, "this plaintiff is without an adequate remedy at law and will suffer irreparable injury and denial of the equal protection of the law." To this petition this plaintiff added the following prayer:
"Wherefore, plaintiff prays that the court restrain and enjoin and prohibit said defendants, and each of them, from proceeding with the purported rehearing in the case of Carl F. Belk vs. this plaintiff, in the Nebraska workmen's compensation court, and from proceeding to hear the second case on the second action for reasons herein, as threatened by said defendants, and as alleged in plaintiff's petition, and that pending hearing on a temporary injunction that a restraining order issue and be entered herein restraining and prohibiting defendants herein, and each of them, from proceeding further on any purported rehearing until this injunction case can be heard upon its merits, and that upon a restraining order issuing herein that there be a rule fixed for hearing and to show cause why a temporary injunction should not issue and at and within the time provided by law, and that during such time the defendants be restrained from any rehearing, and hearing the second action filed in said compensation case, and that upon final hearing, a writ of prohibition issue against defendants and that said defendants be perpetually enjoined and prohibited from such acts, and for such other and further relief as to this court may seem just and equitable."
Upon this petition, and affidavit in support thereof, and a bond conditioned as required by order of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial