Strebing v. Indus. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 05 April 1933
• Docket Number: No. 21544.,21544.
• Citation: 184 N.E. 886,351 Ill. 627
• Parties: STREBING et al. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

351 Ill. 627

184 N.E. 886

STREBING et al.

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 21544.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 23, 1933.

Rehearing Denied April 5, 1933.

Error to Circuit Court, Vermilion County; George W. Bristow, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Mary Strebing, administratrix of the estate of Edward Strebing, deceased, and others, for the death of administratrix' interest, claimants, opposed by the General Refractories Company, employer, and the Industrial Commission. To review the order of the circuit court granting Industrial Commission's motion to quash the certiorari to review the decision of the Industrial Commission sustaining arbitrator's order requiring employer to pay $300 into special fund, claimants bring error.

Order affirmed.

S. F. Schecter and J. R. Dean, both of Danville, for plaintiffs in error.

Gunn, Penwell & Lindley, of Danville, and McKenna & Harris, of Chicago (James J. McKenna and Abraham W. Brussell, both of Chicago, and Harold F. Lindley, of Danville, of counsel), for defendants in error.

DE YOUNG, Justice.

Mary Strebing, administratrix of the estate of Edward Strebing, deceased, filed an application with the Industrial Commission charging that her intestate suffered an accidental injury while employed by the General Refractories Company, a corporation; that the injury resulted in the death of the intestate; and that he left certain persons dependent upon his earnings for support. The prayer of the application was for the adjustment of compensation for the injury. The arbitrator found that the decedent left no persons dependent upon him for support, but required the respondent to pay $300 into a special fund in the custody of the state treasurer as prescribed by paragraph (e) of section 7 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1929, c. 48, § 144(e). The decision of the arbitrator was sustained by the Industrial Commission. The circuit court of Vermilion county issued a writ of certiorari and a transcript of the proceedings before the commission was filed as a return to the writ. The respondent entered its limited appearance in the circuit court and made a motion to quash the writ of certiorari. The motion was granted, and, in obedience to a writ of error allowed by this court, a transcript of the record is submitted for a further review.

The applicant for compensation was represented by Elmer O. Furrow, an attorney at law, and the latter was designated in the application as the person upon whom all notices of proceedings in the matter should be served. A written notice of the arbitrator's decision was sent to attorney Furrow by registered mail, and a receipt for the notice, signed in the attorney's name by G. L. Dietz, his agent, was received at the office of the Industrial Commission.The same attorney later filed a petition for a review of the arbitrator's decision. Notice of the time and place of the hearing on review was received by attorney Furrow. Upon this hearing John R. Dean, another attorney at law, conducted the examination of the witnesses called by the original applicant and three other persons who were added as coapplicants. A notice of the decision of the Industrial Commission was mailed to attorney Furrow and a receipt for that notice, signed in the name of Furrow, by F. M. Porter, his agent, was received at the office of the Industrial Commission in December 3, 1930. No action was taken within twenty days from the receipt of this notice to obtain a review of the record by the circuit court upon a writ of certiorari. On January 15, 1931, however, J. R. Dean, by Grace Golden, his agent, acknowledged the receipt of a notice of the decision on review and that receipt was filed in the office of the Industrial Commission. Two weeks later on January 29, 1931, Dean filed a praecipe for a writ of certiorari in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of Vermilion county. The writ was issued, and, as a return thereto, a transcript of the proceedings before the Industrial Commission, certified by its secretary as true and complete, was filed in the office of the clerk of the circuit court on March 13, 1931.

Subsequently, on May 19, 1931, the respondent entered its limited appearance in the circuit court and made a motion to quash the writ of certiorari for the want of jurisdiction, asserting among other grounds, that the suit had not been instituted within twenty days after the applicant's attorney of record received the notice of the Industrial Commission's decision. A decision upon the motion was reserved. On December 31, 1931, the respondent moved that the transcript of the record be sent to the Industrial Commission for the purpose of including in it a copy of attorney Furrow's receipt for the Industrial Commission's decision on review and that the commission be directed to return the transcript so amplified without unnecessary delay. The motion was granted on the day it was made. Finally, on March 28, 1932, the motion of the respondent to quash the writ of certiorari for the want of jurisdiction was also granted and the proceeding was dismissed.

The plaintiffs in error contend that they caused the praecipe for the writ of certiorari to be filed in the office of the clerk of the circuit court within the time required by the statute and that the circuit court therefore erred in quashing the writ. Subparagraph (1) of paragraph (f) of section 19 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1929, c. 48, § 156(f), par. 1, provides, among other things, that the circuit court of the county where any of the parties defendant may be found shall, by writ of certiorari to the Industrial Commission, have power to review all questions of law and fact presented by the record, and that such suit shall be commenced within twenty days of the receipt of notice of the decision of the commission. With respect to the service of notice, paragraph (i) of the same section, Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1929, c. 48, § 156(i), provides that each party, upon taking any steps or proceedings whatever before an arbitrator, committee of arbitration, Industrial Commission, or court shall file with the commission his address, or the name and address of an agent upon whom all notices to be given shall be served, either personally or by registered mail.

The writ of certiorari, by which the circuit court is given jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Industrial Commission in compensation cases, is not the common-law writ of certiorari but is a writ solely of statutory creation. The powers which the circuit court may exercise by virtue of that writ are merely the powers which the Workmen's Compensation Act confers. A party who seeks a review by the circuit court of the commission's...