State ex rel. Nelson-Spelliscy Implement Company v. District Court of Meeker County
| Decision Date | 15 January 1915 |
| Docket Number | 19,127 - (299) |
| Citation | 150 N.W. 623,128 Minn. 221 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. NELSON-SPELLISCY IMPLEMENT COMPANY v. DISTRICT COURT OF MEEKER COUNTY and Another |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Upon the relation of Nelson-Spelliscy Implement Co., this court granted its writ of certiorari to review an order of the district court for Meeker county, Qvale, J., in an action by Minnie V. Almquist against relator, directing judgment in favor of plaintiff. Affirmed.
1. In proceedings for compensation under Part 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (chapter 467, Laws 1913), it is held that the evidence supports the findings of the trial court to the effect that, at the time of the accident and death complained of, the relation of employer and employee existed between defendant and decedent, that the cause of death was accidental and while decedent was engaged in the course of his employment, and was not caused by decedent's intoxication.
Act constitutional.
2. Held, further, following Mathison v. Minneapolis Street Ry. Co. 126 Minn. 286, that the statute is not obnoxious to the various constitutional provisions invoked by defendant.
Application to existing contracts of employment.
3. The statute applies to the relation of employer and employee existing at the time of and which continued after its passage; and does not impair the obligations of the contract by which the relation came into existence.
Alva R Hunt and L. K. Sexton, for relator.
E. P Peterson and A. F. Foster, for respondent.
Plaintiff's intestate, her husband, was on October 27, 1913, accidentally killed by the overturning of an automobile which he was driving and on the claim that he was an employee of the Nelson-Spelliscy Implement Co., a corporation, and that the accident and his death arose out of and in the course of his employment, she brought proceedings for the compensation provided for by part 2 of chapter 467, p. 675, Laws 1913, known as the "Workmen's Compensation Act." The matter duly came on for hearing in the district court, where findings of fact were made and judgment ordered for plaintiff in harmony with the provisions of that statute. Thereafter defendant brought the proceeding to this court for review by certiorari.
The principal issues of fact on the trial below were: (1) Whether decedent was an employee of the company at the time of the accident; and (2) whether the accident was caused by his voluntary intoxication.
It appears from the record that defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of this state, with its principal place of business at Litchfield, and at the time in question was engaged in buying and selling farm implements, wagons, carriages and automobiles, repairing automobiles and carrying passengers by automobiles for hire. Decedent entered the employ of defendant in July, 1912, and continued therein, according to plaintiff's contention, until the day of his death, which occurred on October 27, 1913. The duties of his employment consisted, among other things, in setting up and repairing automobiles and farm machinery, and operating and driving automobiles in defendant's auto delivery business. Defendant contended on the trial that decedent was not in its employ on the day of the accident, and that his term of employment, though previously existing, ended and terminated by decedent's resignation the day preceding his death, and that he was not acting for defendant on the day in question. Also that the accident was caused by the intoxicated condition of decedent. The court found the facts in plaintiff's favor, and to the effect that decedent was at the time of his death in the employ of defendant, acting in the course of his employment, and that the automobile which he was driving was accidentally overturned, and that decedent was not intoxicated.
The assignments of error challenge the findings of the court, its refusal to amend and modify the same, the constitutionality of the statute upon which the proceedings and judgment are founded, and one ruling admitting certain evidence over defendant's objection.
None of the assignments require extended discussion. We find from a...
To continue reading
Request your trial