Reese v. Hake
| Decision Date | 11 January 1947 |
| Citation | 199 S.W.2d 569,184 Tenn. 423 |
| Parties | REESE v. HAKE. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Feb. 1, 1947.
Appeal from Chancery Court, Davidson County; R. E. Lee, Chancellor.
Suit by Gladys L. Reese, by next friend, Paul Reese, against W. O Hake, Commissioner of the Department of Employment Security to recover unemployment compensation. From decree sustaining action of Board of Review in the Unemployment Compensation Division of the Department of Employment Security denying compensation, complainant appeals.
Decree affirmed.
G. E. White, of Lewisburg, for appellant.
Hammond Fowler, of Rockwood, and W. L. Moore, of Nashville, for appellee.
This is a suit by Gladys L. Reese, by next friend, Paul Rese, against W. O. Hake, Commissioner of the Department of Employment Security, to recover unemployment compensation.
The complainant was unsuccessful in her claim before the Board of Review in the Unemployment Compensation Division of the Department of Employment Security. By certiorari the complainant brought the cause to the chancery court of Marshall County, where the action of the Board of Review was sustained. Following section 6901.6( 1) Williams' Tennessee Code, the appeal comes directly here.
The complainant quit her employment with the Marshall Stove Works at Lewisburg on July 4, 1944. She was seventeen years of age at that time and had worked in the plant for about eight months. At the time her employment was terminated she had a small child two years of age. In her testimony before the administrative tribunal complainant stated that she quit her work to care for her small child and to take a rest. In her original claim for compensation complainant stated that she quit her work because it was 'too hot and dirty.' The original claim was filed on January 10, 1945, and approved and the complainant was paid unemployment benefits for seven weeks in the sum of $15 per week when the benefits were stopped due to the fact that she stated at that time she could not accept work if it were offered to her. There was no appeal by complainant from the decision stopping the unemployment benefits.
Later on March 28, 1945, complainant filed an additional claim for benefits; and it is this claim that we are considering. This last-mentioned claim was disallowed by the chief deputy of the Unemployment Compensation Division on May 3, 1945, because he found that complainant was not able and available for work within the meaning of the statute. Complainant did not appeal from this decision of the chief deputy until July 13, 1945, giving as her reason for failure to seasonably appeal that she did not know she had the right to appeal. It seems that shortly after complainant filed this last claim she was referred to employment at a local pencil factory but failed to report or or accept this employment. At the time of the filing of this second claim complainant was pregnant and her child was born on October 23, 1945. Complainant testified that she could not have accepted any work except very light work at the time this claim was filed due to the fact that she almost lost her first child from lifting, that she did not accept the job offered her because she was mad at the local manager of the United States...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moulton v. Iowa Employment Sec. Commission
... ... Kontner v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 148 Ohio St ... 614, 76 N.E.2d 611; Reese" v. Hake, 184 Tenn. 423, 199 S.W.2d ... 569, 570; Clinton v. Hake, 185 Tenn. 476, 206 S.W.2d 889, ... 890. She failed to meet this burden ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Adams v. American Lava Corp.
... ... of American Lava Corporation, the said suit being against the ... above named defendant as employer and W. O. Hake, ... Commissioner of Unemployment Compensation ... The ... complainants filed claims for total unemployment compensation ... that compensation should be denied 'on the ground that ... such claimant was not available [for work].' Reese v ... Hake, 184 Tenn. 423, 199 S.W.2d 569, 570 ... Counsel ... for complainants seek to distinguish the facts of the instant ... ...
-
Clinton v. Hake
... ... have before us on appeal ... Five ... assignments of error are made. All more or less are ... intertwined and we will treat them as a whole without taking ... each assignment up seriatim ... This ... Court speaking through Mr. Justice Prewitt in Reese v ... Hake, 184 Tenn. 423, 199 S.W.2d 569, 570, said: ... 'It ... is a definite requirement of the Unemployment Compensation ... Law, Williams' Code, § 6901.4(c), that a claimant must be ... able to accept suitable employment if offered as a condition ... necessary to ... ...