State ex rel. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation v. Workmen's Compensation Commission
Citation | 126 S.W.2d 230 |
Decision Date | 15 March 1939 |
Docket Number | 35723 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORPORATION et al. v. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSION et al |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Mosman, Rogers, Bell & Buzard, and Don E. Black, all of Kansas City, for appellants.
Roy McKittrick, Atty. Gen., Covell R. Hewitt, Asst. Atty. Gen and M. D. Campbell, Jr., and Guy W. Green, Jr., both of Kansas City, for respondents.
COOLEY and BOHLING, CC., concurs.
WESTHUES, Commissioner.
Randall N. Hill was, through an order of the Missouri Workmen's Compensation Commission, awarded compensation for permanent total disability in the sum of $ 20 per week for three hundred weeks, and thereafter $ 7.50 per week, also $ 130.60 for medical aid. From this award the employer, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, insurer, appealed. The award was sustained by the circuit court of Howell county, Missouri, and later affirmed October 29, 1936, by the Springfield Court of Appeals. See Hill v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation et al., 98 S.W.2d 156. Since then Hill has been paid sums as per award.
On February 1, 1937, Hill requested the compensation commission for a 'Lump Sum Settlement'. This was resisted by the employer and insurer. On March 3, 1937, the compensation commission commuted the award and found that the amount due was $ 8,497.62, and ordered this amount paid in a lump sum. Employer and insurer requested an appeal from that order, but this request was denied by the commission. Thereafter, on April 19, 1937, the employer and insurer, that is, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, sued out a writ of certiorari in the circuit court of Cole county. Respondent, Compensation Commission, filed a return to the writ issued. On June 11, 1937, the circuit court of Cole county entered a judgment denying the writ and approving the order of the compensation commission. From this judgment relators were granted an appeal to this court.
There is no amount in dispute in this case. The sole question for decision is whether the compensation commission was within its jurisdiction in commuting the award. No constitutional question was suggested by either party. It is evident that we do not have appellate jurisdiction of the case. A similar case, decided herewith, was transferred to the court of appeals. See Hanley v. Carlo Motor Service...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Arthur v. Hammett
... ... 255, 200 S.W. 1062; State ... ex rel. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corp. et al. v ... en's Compensation Commission (Mo.), 126 S.W.2d ... 230; State ex ... Because the Corporation is the only proper petitioner to ... correct the ... ...
-
St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Toberman
... ... denied." [State ex rel. v. Reynolds (Banc), 256 Mo. 710, ... v ... Workmen's Compensation Commission (Mo.), 126 S.W.2d ... ...
-
Hanley v. Carlo Motor Service Co.
... ... the Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., Insurer, Appellants No. 35555Supreme Court ... an order of the Workmen's Compensation Commission wherein ... the Commission commuted ... ...