United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation v. Sullivan, s. 93

• Decision Date: 19 February 1923
• Docket Number: 124,Nos. 93,s. 93
• Citation: 67 L.Ed. 577,261 U.S. 146,43 S.Ct. 292
• Parties: UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD EMERGENCY FLEET CORPORATION v. SULLIVAN (two cases)
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

261 U.S. 146

43 S.Ct. 292

67 L.Ed. 577

UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD EMERGENCY FLEET CORPORATION

v SULLIVAN (two cases).

Nos. 93, 124.

Argued Jan. 4, 1923.

Decided Feb. 19, 1923.

Mr. Solicitor General Beck, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner and plaintiff in error.

Mr. Samuel Scoville, Jr., of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant in error and respondent.

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Claiming to have been injured (October, 1918) while employed by the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation as a motor truck driver, defendant in error Sullivan presented a claim for compensation to the Workmen's Compensation Bureau, Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry. The corporation answered; denied that the injury was of a permanent nature, and asserted that it was not liable for the further reason 'that claimant was a direct employee of the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, and accordingly is a civil employee of the United States of America, and will be compensated for injury under the federal Workmen's Compensation Act, subject to sustaining proof of disability.'

The referee found that, while employed by the Fleet Corporation as a chauffeur, Sullivan suffered injuries from a collision in Philadelphia; that neither party had served notice rejecting article 3 of the Compensation Act (Pa. St. 1920, §§ 21924-21927); and awarded compensation.

The Bureau heard the matter de novo, and affirmed the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and dismissed the appeal. It said:

'In the case at bar there is no evidence that claimant was a civil employee of the United States or that he received his wages through the United States Treasury. We cannot infer that such was the case. * * * While it might be difficult to draw the exact line of demarcation as to when the defendant is acting as a private corporation or is acting for the United States, the burden would be on the defendant to prove if it were acting for the United States that it would be exempt—there is no defense of this kind interposed in this case. We only have the question of law raised by defendant that the Pennsylvania workmen's compensation board has no jurisdiction. We cannot agree with this. In conclusion we hold: That we have jurisdiction, on the ground that the defendant doing business as a corporation in the state of Pennsylvania, an employer of labor in the state of Pennsylvania, is liable for compensation to the claimant in this case under our act. It is neither our duty nor privilege to make a collateral investigation as to the ownership of the defendant's capital stock.'

Successive appeals, limited by statute to matters of law, were dismissed by the court of common pleas and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Sullivan v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, 76 Pa. Super. Ct. 30. The latter court—the highest where decision in the proceeding could be had said——

'In the present case, the workmen's compensation board and the court are bound to take judicial notice of acts of Congress and executive orders and regulations authorized by acts of Congress which have the force of statutes (Caha v. United States, 152 U. S. 211), as well as general acts of assembly affecting the defendant. Anything else must be averred and proved as by any other litigant. * * *

'On its face we have here a claim for workmen's compensation presented against a corporation of the ...