Sangamon County Mining Co. v. Indus. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 17 February 1925
• Docket Number: No. 16468.,16468.
• Citation: 315 Ill. 532,146 N.E. 492
• Parties: SANGAMON COUNTY MINING CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

315 Ill. 532

146 N.E. 492

SANGAMON COUNTY MINING CO.

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 16468.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 17, 1925.

Error to Circuit Court, Logan County; Frank Lindley, Judge.

Proceeding, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, by Nellie Healy, for the death of Tim Healy, her husband, opposed by the Sangamon County Mining Company, employer. An award of the Industrial Commission, commuting to a lump sum compensation awarded the widow and child, was confirmed by the circuit court, and the employer brings error.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Brown, Hay & Stephens, of Springfield for plaintiff in error.

J. A. Londrigan, of Springfield, and Peter Murphy, of Lincoln, for defendant in error.

THOMPSON, J.

This writ of error is prosecuted, by leave of court, to review the judgment of the circuit court of Logan county, confirming the decision of the Industrial Commission commuting compensation awarded the widow and child of Tim Healy, deceased, to a lump sum.

Nellie Healy, the widow, testified that she has a daughter 17 years old; that the daughter is not in good health, and that a doctor recommended that she take her to a different climate; that they own a house and lot and an adjoining vacant lot in the city of Lincoln; that the house is worth about $2,000; that the house needs a new roof and painting; that the house has 6 rooms; that if it were put in good repair she could rent it for about $40 a month; the she desires to purchase a smaller house and move it on the vacant lot for a home; that she desires to have the compensation awarded her commuted to a lump sum and paid to her as such, so that she can make the changes in her property.Her brother-in-law, John C. Healy, testified that her property is worth about $4,000, and that if it were repaired and a furnace installed in it she could rent it for about $35 or $40 a month; that he knows of a little 4-room house which can be brought for $900 and moved onto the vacant lot.

[1] Section 9 of the Compensation Act (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1923, c. 48, § 146) provides that where ‘it appears to the best interest of the parties that such compensation be so paid,’ the commission may order the commutation of the compensation awarded to an equivalent lump sum. This court has held that, before the commission is authorized to commute the compensation and order it paid in a lump sum, the petitioner must support the application by competent evidence showing that it is for the best interests of the petitioner that the compensation be so paid. Forschner & Co. v. Industrial Board, 278 Ill. 99, 115 N. E. 912. The general plan of all Workmen's Compensation Acts is that compensation shall be paid in weekly payments, so that it will, as nearly as possible, supply the loss of earnings resulting from the disability. Lump sum awards should be the exception, and not the rule. Roma v. Industrial Com., 97 Ohio St. 247, 119 N. E. 461;Bailey v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 99 Neb. 109, 155 N. W. 237; 1 Honnold on Workmen's Compensation, § 179; Harper on Workmen's Compensation, § 185; Angerstein on Workmen's Compensation, § 202. The state is concerned in preventing dissipation of the money paid, and an early recourse to that charitable aid which systemactic compensation aims to avoid. International Coal Co. v. Industrial Com., 293 Ill. 524, 127 N. E. 703, 10 A. L. R. 1010;Goelitz Co. v. Industrial Board, 278 Ill. 164, 115 N. E. 855. The fundamental basis of workmen's compensation laws is that there is a large element of public interest in...