Richardson v. National Refining Co.

• Decision Date: 06 May 1933
• Docket Number: 30831.
• Citation: 137 Kan. 473,21 P.2d 307
• Parties: RICHARDSON v. NATIONAL REFINING CO. et al.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

21 P.2d 307

137 Kan. 473

RICHARDSON v. NATIONAL REFINING CO. et al.

No. 30831.

Supreme Court of Kansas

May 6, 1933

Syllabus by the Court.

Allowance of interest on installments of workmen's compensation from time each installment became due held erroneous (Laws 1927, c. 232).

There is no provision in the Workmen's Compensation Act for adding interest to the amount to which the court finds the claimant to be entitled, and a judgment allowing interest should be modified to that extent.

Appeal from District Court, Montgomery County; Joseph W. Holdren Judge.

On rehearing.

Former judgment modified.

For former opinion, see 136 Kan. 724, 18 P.2d 131.

Irwin Snattinger, Hugh T. Fisher, E. B. Smith, all of Topeka, Carl E. Ziegler, of Coffeyville and E. R. Adams, of Kansas City, Mo., for appellants.

Charles D. Ise, of Coffeyville, for appellee.

SMITH Justice.

In this case an opinion affirming the judgment of the lower court was handed down in January, 1933. The judgment of the lower court allowed compensation at the rate of $15.84 per week. The court assumed that this amount was due at the end of the first week after the injury, another $15.84 at the end of the second week, and so on for each succeeding week. The judgment further provided that these sums should bear interest at 6 percent. per annum from the time each became due till the date of the hearing before the examiner.

On July 1, 1931, the examiner found that there was due claimant the sum of $1,742.40. This action was approved by the court, and in its judgment the court allowed interest on this sum at 6 percent. per annum from that date to the date of judgment. Respondent assigned this allowance of interest as one of the errors of the trial court.

The question was not dealt with in the opinion of affirmance. See Richardson v. National Refining Co., 136 Kan. 724 18 P.2d 131. A rehearing has been granted respondent on the question of interest alone.

There are authorities that hold that a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act is a claim on a contract; that a claim on a contract draws interest from the time it is due that compensation is due when the injury occurs--hence an award of compensation should draw interest from the time of the injury. This is the rule as announced in Brown v City of Pipestone, 186 Minn. 540, 245 N.W. 145, Nester v. Korn Baking Co., 194 Iowa, 1270, 190 N.W. 949, and McMurray v. Peabody Coal Co., 281 Ill. 218, 118 N.E. 29. Indeed this court has announced this to be the rule. See Johnson, Guardian, v. Milling Co., 116 Kan. 7631, 229 P. 359. The trouble is, however, that the above case was written construing the Compensation Act as it existed in this state prior to the legislative session of 1927. See R. S. 1923, 44--534. That section provided for enforcing payment of the award, and, among other things, contained the following provision: "The judgment in...