Western Shade Cloth Co. v. Indus. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 09 June 1927
• Docket Number: No. 18052.,18052.
• Citation: 325 Ill. 570,156 N.E. 796
• Parties: WESTERN SHADE CLOTH CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

325 Ill. 570

156 N.E. 796

WESTERN SHADE CLOTH CO.

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 18052.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 20, 1927.

Rehearing Denied June 9, 1927.

Error to Circuit Court, Cook County; Harry M. Fisher, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Stanley Posewich, administrator of Joseph Kaunasavaskas, for death of said Kaunasavaskas in employment, opposed by the Western Shade Cloth Company, the employer. An award for funeral expenses and disallowance of dependency claim was quashed on certiorari to the circuit court, and the cause was remanded to the Industrial Commission for further proceedings. A transcript of the proceedings of the Industrial Commission was filed in the circuit court, which court set the award aside and entered an order for award, and the employer brings error.

Order of circuit court reversed.

Thomas C. Angerstein and G. A. Bruegger, both of Chicago (George W. Angerstein, of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

William Gillespie, of Chicago, for defendant in error.

HEARD, J.

September 28, 1921, Joseph Kaunasavaskas, an employee of the WesternShade Cloth Company, was injured while in the course and scope of his employment and as a result thereof died October 28, 1921. Stanley Posewich, as administrator of his estate, filed a claim with the Industrial Commission under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1925, c. 48, §§ 138-172) on account of the alleged dependency of the father and mother of deceased, who were residents of Lithuania. A hearing before an arbitrator resulted in the allowance of $150 for funeral expenses and the disallowance of the dependency claim, and upon review the award was confirmed by the Industrial Commission. Upon review on certiorari the circuit court of Cook county quashed the award of the Industrial Commission and remanded the cause to the commission for further proceedings, with directions to open the cause for the further hearing of evidence on behalf of either of the parties on the question of the dependency of the parents of deceased upon his earnings and to make a finding and award thereon in accordance with the law and the facts, and directed the commission, if no further evidence was heard, to enter an award in favor of the applicant for the minimum amount provided in paragraph (c) of section 7 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The remanding order was filed with the Industrial Commission, further evidence was heard, and an award was entered by the commission confirming the original award of the arbitrator. The administrator did not sue out a writ of certiorari from the circuit court of Cook county to review this award in accordance with the statute, but filed a transcript of the proceedings of the commission in the circuit court, upon which the court, over the employer's objection, proceeded to act, set aside the award of the commission, and entered an order that the employer pay to the administrator $1,650 at the rate of $14 per week from November 7, 1921, less $60.66 paid the deceased employee duringhis lifetime, that the sum of $1,589.34 was due, and that the administrator was now entitled to receive the same; and it was ordered that the award of the circuit court stand in lieu of the award of the Industrial Commission. To review the record the employer, the Western Shade Cloth Company, has by leave of this court sued out a writ of error.

[1] Upon the filing of the transcript of the proceedings of the Industrial Commission with the circuit court, the employer entered a special appearance and filed its motion to strike the transcript from the files of the circuit court for want of jurisdiction in the court, and it now assigns as error the overruling of this motion, and claims that in all the subsequent proceedings the circuit court was without jurisdiction.

When the circuit court remanded the cause to the Industrial Commission, the order contained the following:

‘It is further ordered, adjudged, and considered by the court that jurisdiction be and it is hereby retained by this court of said cause, and to review such further proceedings and the decision of said Industrial Commission as may be had and made pursuant to this order,...