Moyer v. Orek Coal Co.

• Decision Date: 21 December 1934
• Docket Number: 32441
• Citation: 78 S.W.2d 107
• Parties: MOYER et ux. v. OREK COAL CO
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

78 S.W.2d 107

MOYER et ux. v. OREK COAL CO

No. 32441

Supreme Court of Missouri, First Division

December 21, 1934

S. H Ellison, E. M. Jayne, and A. D. Campbell, all of Kirksville for appellant.

W. E Shirley and Philip J. Fowler, both of Kirksville, for respondents.

OPINION

HYDE Commissioner.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the circuit court of Adair county affirming an award of the Workmen's Compensation Commission to respondents herein for compensation for the death of their son, Basil Moyer. The award was for $ 10 for medical aid, $ 150 for burial expenses, $ 500 for attorneys' fees, and for death benefits $ 8.64 per week for 300 weeks commuted and payable immediately in the sum of $ 2318.80. The judgment being for less than the amount required to give this court jurisdiction of this appeal, we have no authority to consider it unless there is, as was insisted at the oral argument, a constitutional question involved.

It being the first duty of this court to determine whether or not, under the Constitution, it has jurisdiction (regardless of whether that question is raised by the parties), we have examined the record and briefs and have decided that we do not have jurisdiction in this case, because there is no real constitutional question raised. The only provisions of our Constitution which appellant points out as being violated by the Legislature in enacting our workmen's compensation laws are two sections of the Bill of Rights, sections 4 and 20 of article 2. Section 4 states the right of every one to the enjoyment of the gains of his own industry, while section 20 prohibits the taking of private property for private use without compensation. Appellant's argument upon this proposition is as follows:

'If an employee may disobey the rules of the master; if he may disregard the terms of the statute; if he may ignore the master's positive, repeated command, order, instruction, warning * * * all given to him just at the moment when he was about to start on his reckless enterprise, and to its fatal end, and, in spite of everything that could be done, or which could have been done, when the servant persists in his folly, have it said that this employer, who has done nothing to justify his having to part with the gains of his industry in favor of Joe Moyer, the respondent, who has done no single thing to deserve it, then the law by and through which he is compelled to lose it is unconstitutional and void. Sections 20 and 4 of article 2 of the Constitution of Missouri provides that a person shall not be deprived of the gains of his industry unjustly or unreasonably. Does the law, therefore, permit respondents to deprive the appellant of its property, and if so, is that taking reasonable or unreasonable? Just or unjust? * * *

'If the Compensation Act is constitutional it cannot be given the construction placed upon it by the Commission, because such construction is manifestly unjust, unfair and unreasonable.

'But, if it can be said that the Commission has properly construed the law, then the law itself is unconstitutional because it is unjust and unfair.'

At the same time by brief and reply brief, appellant's counsel vigorously and sincerely argue that the Compensation Law...