Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Co. v. Indus. Comm'n
| Decision Date | 03 April 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 25320.,25320. |
| Citation | 373 Ill. 293,26 N.E.2d 84 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | MATTHIESSEN & HEGELER ZINC CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Bureau County; R. S. Russell, Judge.
Certiorari proceeding by the Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Company against the Industrial Commission, Amelia Ambrose, and others. To review a judgment quashing the writ of certiorari, the plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.Cassels, Potter & Bentley, of Chicago, and Hollerich & Hurley, of La Salle (C. N. Hollerich, of La Salle, Claud D. Raber, of Chicago, and James D. Hurley, of La Salle, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Paul D. Perona and D. J. Campeggio, both of La Salle, for defendant in error.
The circuit court of Bureau county sustained a motion of Amelia Ambrose, widow of William Ambrose, deceased, to quash the writ of certiorari to the Industrial Commission for failure to comply with section 19(f) 1 and (f) 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Ill.Rev.Stat.1939, chap. 48, § 156(f)(1, 2). Among the grounds of the motion were: (1) The praecipe for writ of certiorari did not name or make parties the minor children of William Ambrose, deceased, or their next friend, nor did it contain their last know address, though they were parties in interest to be served by scire facias; (2) no sufficient bond was filed with the circuit clerk, but the power of attorney attached to the bond showed on its face the surety's agent had no authority to execute or sign bonds to be used in judicial proceedings in Bureau county; that his authority was limited to proceedings in LaSalle county. The court refused to permit plaintiff in error to correct these alleged errors, and entered judgment quashing the writ of certiorari. From that judgment we allowed a petition for writ of error.
The application for adjustment of claim was filed by Amelia Ambrose, widow of William Ambrose, deceased, in her own name. It stated that deceased left surviving him three children under sixteen years of age. The award of the arbitrator was to the widow ‘for the support of herself and said minor children.’ On review by the Industrial Commission the employer moved that the widow be called upon to amend the application for adjustment of claim to include the minor children, by the widow as their next friend, as parties, so that the minors would be bound by the proceedings before the Industrial Commission. This was agreed to by counsel for the widow.It does not appear from the record that the application for adjustment of claim was amended on its face, but the commissioner stated: ‘The record may show that the petitioners in this case will be the widow and the three children’ by the widow as their next friend. This was satisfactory to employer's attorney.
Plaintiff in error contends the minor children were not necessary parties. To this, defendant in error replies it is not a question of whether they were necessary parties in the proceedings before the arbitrator or Industrial Commission, but whether, having once been made parties there, it was imperative that they be named in the praecipe for the writ of certiorari. Section 19(f) 1, so far as here pertinent, provides, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chadwick v. Industrial Com'n
...in interest (See, Daugherty v. Industrial Com. (1983), 99 Ill.2d 1, 75 Ill.Dec. 387, 457 N.E.2d 381; Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Co. v. Industrial Com. (1940), 373 Ill. 293, 26 N.E.2d 84; Board v. Industrial Com. (3rd Dist., 1984), 129 Ill.App.3d 56, 84 Ill.Dec. 355, 472 N.E.2d 105), or fail......
-
Perusky v. Industrial Commission, 50033
...384. Accord, Interlake Steel Corp. v. Industrial Com. (1975), 60 Ill.2d 255, 262, 326 N.E.2d 744, Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Co. v. Industrial Com. (1940), 373 Ill. 293, 296, 26 N.E.2d 24, and Moweaqua Coal Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Industrial Com. (1926), 322 Ill. 403, 404-05, 153 N.E.......
-
Daugherty v. Industrial Com'n
...The Treasurer and his counsel were not included in the praecipe as section 19(f)(1) requires. Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Co. v. Industrial Com. (1940), 373 Ill. 293, 26 N.E.2d 84, involved similar circumstances. There, the circuit court quashed a writ of certiorari upon the motion of the wi......
-
Chambers v. Industrial Com'n, 1-90-1652
...(See Daugherty v. The Industrial Comm'n (1983), 99 Ill.2d 1, 75 Ill.Dec. 387, 457 N.E.2d 381, and Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Co. v. The Industrial Comm'n (1940), 373 Ill. 293, 26 N.E.2d 84.) In both cases, the petitioners failed to name all of the parties in interest. In contrast, in the pr......