*1 treat- provide medical employer did ent now asserts that the not thereby estopped required by Compensation Act and is the ment showing that falls short of invoking the act. The evidence only refer- medical treatment. The employer provide the refused to direct It did employer is above. seems the ence to the matter set out showing de- that plaintiff a There is no to be examined doctor. denied, meet, liability under or its fendant refused to assume ex- at its own provide the Act medical treatment claim, against his em- pense. plaintiff no It seems rather that granted position act to him the but took the ployer, to the benefits upon this common-law action. he was without the act and relied the any at time that appear employer It not the asserted does that plaintiff liable to apply Act did not or that it plain- according provisions thereof. Nor was compensation the employer to by any of, by, the position tiff act or taken induced Compensation Act. pursue proceeding the this action instead of under employer provide think the refused to We are inclined to that had any liability only effect therefor the medical treatment denied employ physician to authorize a thereof be the expense choosing the of medical treatment own recover neg- proceeding employer the commission. Where the before act, provide required lects or refuses to medical treatment obviously then, treatment, provisions within costs such against Compensation Act, should assessed such be proceeding before the commission. Defendant’s should have sustained and it follows demurrers been judgment court be reversed. therefore the circuit must Sturgis CC., Hyde, is concur. so ordered. foregoing- FergusoN, 0., PER opinion by adopt- CURIAMThe opinion judges’ ed as All of the court. concur.

Sylvia Employer, Corporation, Ruth Bolin Company, Security Casualty Insurer, Corporation, Company, Mutual S. W. 774. Appellants. —73 July One, 1934.

Division 73-3 *2 Brown, Douglas & Brown appellants.

Randolph <&Randolph respondent. for HYDE, writer, recently appeal an case, coming C.—This Court of insurer an order the Circuit an and its affirming Compensa- County Buchanan an award of the Workmen’s William M. made for the death of tion Commission. The award was Bolin, Company, prior until Swift & to his widow children, remarriage, unpaid death or then the remainder his-two years age. $7796, for a four and fifteen The award was total being expenses per 382.3 $150 $20 burial week for weeks. employed

Claimant’s evidence ivas to effect that Bolin Missouri, traveling Joseph, & at St. salesman 1923; December, previously he had worked for Swift Com- pany, year his prior working had for a last been but Norton, Oil Company for Sinclair at Kansas. He come St. had Joseph family holidays his the Christmas he at the time entered his employment, into verbal was a con- Joseph tract. former definitely St. wife’s but it home is not previously shown whether he had lived there. For first week of employment, Joseph St. plant remained in the of Swift & Company to familiarize himself with products their he *4 part to sell In the December, 1923, to latter of merchants. family he went Iowa, with Centerville, centrally his to which was located territory in over, he- was to travel and continuously lived there paid until on his death March 1932. He poll taxes and voted there- there. instruction, Bolin’s of. correspondence letters and his about territory, came Joseph from the St. Company. office of Swift & He reports remittances, made his there and sent his for collections from ' territory, his His kept there. accounts were there. pay His checks Joseph came the St. from office. He- was called to meetings sales- in St. Joseph. samples shipped Goods and were to him from St. Joseph. n Company Swift & produce also had a plant Centerville, at Iowa. produce When sold in territory, his it was shipped to his cus- plant. tomers this from Centerville Orders for merchandise, other territory, he sold in his were filled shipped and to his customers Joseph from plant. the St. territory Bolin’s was partly in Iowa and partly in was Missouri. He furnished a Chevrolet coupe Swift & Company trips. to make his kept He this car in garage small at his in Centerville. Twice residence a week he made trips into Mis-

736' Lemon, Unionville,' towns of trips was to these One of souri. n Downing, trip was to Missouri The other Mendota. Poling and ' ' ' (cid:127) Lancaster, Memphis. and Glenwood o’clock, got up about six 7, 1932, Bolin morning March of On the to the residence, and went out his at in the furnace fixed the fire his windy morning. later Sometime cold, blustery, garage. It was a there, garage doors, went through closed coming' smoke wife saw motor poisoning. The bim carbon monoxide dead from found and testimony, according claimant’s running and, to still the car was side, car, upon from that lying opposite on the he was There located, the door. with his face toward was exhaust:pipe easily and there was blew shut garage doors that the evidence dif- ground that it was they dragged on-the so that also evidence that was-a short- had evidence there 'Appellants shut them. to ficult age Bolin’s.accounts; and another' salesman that $1173.14 that'morning-to go over Coinpany was 'Centerville his cus- Claimant-said that'Bolin often carried territory with him. they pay; optomistie that be was when could accounts tomer’s (cid:127) change conditions; actions, no in his at- that had been about he-left, her, arrange manner; when and that he-told or titude evening. visiting Appellants dinner the salesman to next- have the hour that it would take from one-half hour to one evidence also had ordinary poisoning from from carbon monoxide death cause garage. admitted, engine a small idling It'was of an automobile engine running less if the the time would'be faster. however, that that appellants made were Bolin'came to his death The defenses by' arising an accident instead of out course suicide that if 'his death was employment; due to accident apply Act of the State of Iowa would instead Act. The commission found that both the accepted Act; Bolin, employee had the Missouri William “that M. 7, 1932, fatally injured by arising March deceased, was on accident employment in the course of his with. of and Swift & out Company; deceased’s Swift & that Missouri; Joseph, employed traveling in St. he was as a ’ part territory lay that a of his "in salesman and Iowa The commission ruled “that in Missouri.” sincé his contract of jurisdiction was made in Missouri this Commission has compensation claim and award dependents hear this nn deceased.” thereafter applied upon for review and hearing be *5 the award was Appellants full commission affirmed. fore the then circuit court likewise appealed affirmed the award. After lodged appeal the circuit court proceeding appellants the to Federal ground for removal the Court on petition filed the of alleging citizenship, appellants that diversity of were Illinois cor-

737 Joseph, of St. Missouri. resident was a that claimant porations and refusing grant action to court’s assign error the Appellants Work because the Missouri that, held It has been application. elective, and when an em is contractual Compensation Act men’s arising from its limitations on the amount ployer the benefit seeks settlement, adjustment and recovery speedy of individual tribunal, it; aid the State’s administrative invokes the of accepting claimant; and, dis agree or' when upon to failure judicial statutory award, limited review its invokes" satisfied with court; voluntarily brought it has of its action a State that itself and cannot then renounce jurisdiction the State court within the of jurisdiction it and of the Federal Court. v. Mont invoke [Elsas 302; Co., 38 Fed. (2d) gomery McFall v. Barton-Mans Elevator would, (2d)W. Co., 110, 333 Mo. 61 S. seem that such field 911.] many prevent objects removal the attainment of our act. expense is one of Prompt main.purposes settlement at minimum prevents provided, which of the limited review the introduction any gives priority appellate circuit evidence and courts. both Moreover, finally B. S. after 3342, even an award is [Sec. 1929.] may changed change adjudicated, it be there is a where of condition. 3340, Appellants R. S. proceedings cite cases in which [Sec. 1929.] for review awards under Workmen’s Acts other However, rights, states been to have removed Federal Courts. obligations proceedings under acts and these the theories upon which.they based are all so different from are ours do' that.we authority overturning rulings consider them in the Elsas appellants’ MeFall The answer to contention seems cases. accept be that an have does not our Workmen’s Com pensation provisions Act and make its of its contracts with employees, may adjudication its but instead rights leave of their upon liability suits common-law and have removed such actions Court, diversity when there is .Federal of citizenship. the. upon still appeal contend this that Bolin’s death did not arising result from an accident out and in the course of employment. However, it now findings well settled that fact by the commission supported by which are substantial evidence are court, binding upon this v. Fruin-Colnon [Gillick Construction Co. 334 (2d) 65 135, 927; Mo. W. Shroyer S. v. Missouri Livestock Com 332 Co., Mo. 61 (2d) 713; S. W. mission Montgomery v. Elsas Co., Elevator (2d) Mo. S. W. We hold that 130.] facts stated, above with the reasonable inferences may be drawn therefrom favor; in claimant’s evidence constitute.substantial to support finding commission an accident and that it arose out of and the-course of Bolin’s employment. Co., [Leilich Chevrolet 328 Mo. 40 W. S. Motor 601.] *6 Com Missouri Workmen’s contend that next of the State was a resident because apply did not Law

pensation only provided be thosé rights could that claimant’s Iowa and of by this been settled question has Law. Compensation This the Iowa Steel City Daggett Kansas Structural v. case of recent court in the Daggett, a resi (2d) 1036. In that case 207, 65 W. Co., 334 Mo. S. City, Missouri, where he Kansas Colorado, came to Denver, dent a viaduct company to work on steel into a contract with the entered appellants contended case the In that in the State of Kansas. meaning of purpose employment would not be within “the Act, making of Compensation because Workmen’s the Missouri to standing alone, not be sufficient Missouri, in the contract however, em court, ruled bring the act.” This the ease within act, saying: protected our ployee making, if the merit in this contention “There would be Missouri, only thing in that occurred employment was the contract of company The -record shows that the steel is not the case. but such major employer operating under the Missouri was a admitted that it being, true, subject it was to Compensation Act. This Workmen’s (Sec. 3310, R. S. St. 1929, Mo. provisions all of the act. The act 8245) p. Compensa- the Workmen’s Ann., provides that sec. injuries apply to all received outside of this State under tion Act shall employment in this State unless the contract of contract of made . . any provide. employment case shall otherwise ' being major employer appellant company “The steel under- Act, every provision of that act became integral part every employment contract of made the steel that'by company in Missouri. It therefore follows the terms of the into between steel company contract entered agreed Daggett agreed Daggett, company pay, steel to accept, compensation injury, occurred, case wherever it in ac- provisions Compensa- cordance with the Missouri Workmen’s Act, tion Act.- This is so because the which is a provides.” of the contract so Daggett support

The result reached finds case in recent (Ill.), in other states. In Johnston v. decisions Industrial Comm. 185 N. applied E. the Illinois act was to a appar salesman who ently a resident-of Illinois opinion was not and so far as the shows had never even been in that state. This man came to the branch office, Detroit, Michigan, corporation, of an Illinois which was operating Compensation Act, signed under the Illinois and a as its salesman. This contract was sent Chicago acceptance for and the court held 'that the contract necessary made in Illinois because the final act to make it valid was performed injured there. The salesman was way while on his Buffalo, given York. holding New The that he reason entitled act, the contract was the Illinois was that compensation, under corporation in Illinois. with tbe Illinois Hepp (Colo.), 15 Pac. In Insurance Home *7 a in company a made contract Colorado a resident Colorado agent company in New Mexico act as state for the New Colorado making employee family both before and after Mexico. and his The ' However, agent’s in New Mexico. the contract this contract lived territory in provided that he was also to work certain in southern Colorado. The court held that the act an em- Colorado covered ployment contemplated performance in some that.state just of the contemplated services to be rendered as much as one which state; performed that, that all services would be for, services, since a substantial of the contracted be were to performed Colorado, compensation should be awarded.' Corporation 188,

In v. X. L. (Mich.), Roberts I. Glass 244 N. W. 191, Michigan the court held that act covered nonresident em- ployees working outside of the State under contracts made in the employer. State with a resident The court said: ‘ ‘ ground holding There is no that. an employeé, otherwise act, within the terms of the protection merely forfeits his thereunder living because ishe a nonresident across line. ... the state It would also seem to lead to this anomalous situation. "Without the knowledge employer, consent or of the employed one in this State by changing his residence from without the State to one within the State automatically place act, or, during himself within the nonresident, if employment should a become he would .not thereafter act, be bound could maintain against a common-law action employer notwithstanding employer had elected to-come under n the act.” i will, therefore, be seen that such a construction of the act affords protection employer as well as to the employee. There nothing Act, Compensation in our Workmen’s either 3305, in Section 1929, Revised defining Statutes employees, 3310, in Section Revised 1929, stating employment Statutes to which it applies, or in employers, sections relate to which limits its application to employees who are residents of this State. 3310, Section Revised n 1929, only requires Statutes employees that. to receive its benefits injuries shall have sustained in this State or shall have their in this State. The act contemplates that operating shall be act; under our not- that all of its employees shall live this State. This court has held that- it is not necessary, even bring order an employer under the act-as major a employer, employees that his shall employed be in'the State employed or Missouri under contracts of made in the State of Missouri.- Montgomery v. [Elsas Elevator Co.; 330 Mo. 596, 50 S. W. For a full 130.] discussion of the earlier cases

740 working while an compensation of concerning right to 1 claims, he see compensation act whose State under outside [See, 47. Law, 411-427, section Schneider, Workmen’s Sup. 286 U. S. Light Clapper, v.Co. also, Bradford Electric Chattanooga 696; 82 L. of Ohio 1026; A. R. State 571, 76 L. Ed. Ct. Ed. 77 L. Sup. Ct. Co., 289 U. S. 1307.] & Tank Boiler stronger plaintiff’s favor one in is a that this ease It would seem merely worker, itinerant case. Bolin was Daggett than the with a and make a contract into Missouri come happened who work for it in perform act to the Missouri operating firm under He had been an project. previously one isolated state on another permanent em- employer. became more same He employee of this corporation operating under the branch ployee of the per- employed Act -was Missouri Workmen’s family Iowa. He and his lived in Missouri and form its work both because was beneficial and convenient to his Iowa it in the State of *8 arrangement him to This was one employer for do so. Missouri quicker traveling expenses evidently possible and made reduced headquarters times territory, business at all was but his service and re- It sent his orders Joseph, Missouri. was at St. received his and sal- It was from there he instructions mittances. place meetings. was called for sales ary, and was to that he it corporations are not operations The of modern business confined by territory. by lines, are limited what is state but called trade although corporation, & an Illinois finds it conveni- Company, through branches serve certain to do business trade ter- ent ritory. Joseph branch of Swift & operated The St. headquarters it, territory, as the for its but trade several states doing throughout It was business territory Missouri. this located major employer Missouri, operating it was and a under the certainly could, Act. Compensation Missouri if both it and its desired, rights obligations employees make and arising under Compensation Act a the Workmen’s contract between contract, fact, them. When it does make a such the mere that for doing work convenience in covered employee Missouri, contract an required up is take residence outside of the State of refusing is no reason for to enforce obligations, the mutual arising therefrom, obligations as in the same the case of by any created contract. other also contend that the Missouri Act applicable

was not it because was not in effect at original the time the was made. This Daggett court in the case fully distinguished discussed and the case of Mitchell v. St. Louis Smelting Refining Co., 202 App. 251, Mo. S. W. upon relied by appellants. Appellants’ contention was settled the decision of this banc court en State ex rel. Brewen-Clark Syrup Co. v. W. Comm., 320 Mo. 8 S. Workmen’s adopted accepted, both bolding* and (2d) when tbe act and :was thus employee, their modified employer and contract part of, “immediately and to the- became changed the act and supplemented the contract of provisions, and terms extent of all its existing hold that the "commission’s between them.” We ruling correct. Ferguson Sturgis,. CG., concur. judgment is affirmed.

The by Hyde," C., foregoing opinion adopted PEE CUEIAM:—The judges All the opinion of the court. concur.". City Missouri at the relation of Mu Clarence, o State f nicipal Corporation, Mayor W. H. Hudson, City said Rickey Harry Cox, H. H. S. Bohannon, John Everett Constituting Board of Aldermen City said Naylor, Clarence, Relators, v. Vernon L. Second Drain, of the Judge Judge Shelby Judicial Circuit Court Coun Circuit Long McQuary. M. ty, and J. and Samuel 804. W. S.—73 Banc, July 17, Court en 1934.