Wadley v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp.
Decision Date | 06 April 1931 |
Citation | 37 S.W.2d 665,225 Mo.App. 631 |
Parties | D. L. WADLEY, RESPONDENT, v. EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ASSURANCE CORPORATION, APPELLANT |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County.--Hon. Allen C Southern, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
Frank Wilkinson and Raleigh Gough for respondent.
Hackney & Welch for appellant.
Trimble, P. J., absent.
This proceeding originated before the Workmen's Compensation Commission. The claim was filed April 25, 1929. It gives the name of the employer as the Kansas City-Godman Shoe Company and shows that claimant was injured September 18, 1928, in the State of Oklahoma, and as a result of said injury lost his right eye. On May 1, 1929, the named employer filed its answer in which all statements in the claim for compensation are admitted. Thereafter and on May 11, 1929, the insurer, appellant here, filed another answer in which the name of the employer is given as the H. C. Godman Company, Columbus, Ohio; that the answering insurer is the insurer of the Kansas City-Godman Shoe Company, Kansas City, Missouri, and that all statements in the claim are admitted except the following:
After the answer of the insurer was received the commission notified all parties of the claim made by the insurer that the contract of employment was not entered into in Missouri, and requested facts as to where said contract was made. The Kansas City-Godman Shoe Company answered this letter to the effect that the insurance company made the claim about the place of the contract because Wadley formerly worked for the H. C. Godman Company at Columbus, Ohio, and was later transferred to the Kansas City Company September 1, 1928; that the Ohio Company had informed the Kansas City Company that Wadley was actually hired in St. Louis, Missouri, about April 1, 1928, to travel for that company. The Kansas City-Godman Shoe Company further stated to the commission that Wadley reported to its office for work about September 1, 1928, and after that date his salary and traveling expenses were paid by it, and the letter concludes:
Thereafter the commission again wrote all parties informing them of the receipt of the employer's letter and stated:
"Therefore it appears that this case is under our jurisdiction so far as the law of place is concerned."
There was a suggestion that the parties agree upon a place of hearing and that the case would be set for hearing at the Kansas City office unless otherwise advised. Thereafter one of the members of the commission heard evidence and made an award November 22, 1929, in favor of the employer and insurer and against the employee and awarded no compensation because the employee failed to file his claim within six months. Thereafter on review the full commission affirmed the award. There was no findings of fact or rulings of law made by the commissioner or by the commission. The whole contents of the final award as shown by the record in this case consist of the number of the accident claim, the name of the employee, employer, insurer, date and place of the accident, that it was submitted on review November 26, 1929, and the following recital:
The award was signed by three members of the commission and by the secretary. Claimant appealed to the circuit court of Jackson county, and after a hearing duly held the court reversed the award of the commission and remanded the cause for further hearing, as evidenced by the following portions of the record entry of the judgment:
The employer did not appeal from this judgment. The insurer alone appeals and confines the assignments of error to the sole question of territorial jurisdiction. No assault is made upon the correctness of the finding and ruling of the court which constitute the basis of the judgment actually rendered. Therefore it may be assumed that appellant has waived and abandoned all objection to the finding and judgment that the claim was filed in time and that the commission should make findings of fact and rulings of law, and that these questions are not here for review on this appeal. The ruling of the court that the conduct of the employer and the insurer in failing to notify the commission of the accident tolled the running of the statute of limitations may be right (Schrabauer v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Phillips v. Air Reduction Sales Co.
... ... 570; ... Wadley v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp., 37 S.W.2d ... 665, ... ...
-
Adams v. Continental Life Ins. Co.
... ... different award. Secs. 3339, 3342, R. S. 1929; Wadley v ... Employers Liab. Assur. Corp., 225 Mo.App. 636; ... Ins. Co., 7 S.W.2d 309; ... Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Ind. Acc ... Comm., 203 P. 95; Gunther ... ...
-
Brocco v. May Dept. Stores Co.
... ... 256, 259; ... Associated Employers' Reciprocal v. Ind. Com., 211 P ... 570, 30 S.W.2d 650; ... Wadley v. Employers' Liability Assurance ... Corporation, 225 ... ...
-
Platies v. Theodorow Bakery Co.
... ... Co., 224 Mo.App. 570, 30 S.W.2d 650; ... Wadley v. Employers' Lia. Ins. Co., 225 Mo.App ... 631, 37 ... ...