*1 EMMA BROWN v. CITY PIPESTONE AND ANOTHER.1 OF S. B. Jr., L. N. E. Foster, Linnee, and A. for appellants. George Gurley, P. for respondent. J. Loring,
This is from a judgment entered the district court under G. S. 1923 Mason, 4318, of the workmen’s com- pensation act. 1928, Alza D. Brown, a volunteer fireman in the employ
of appellant city, died from causes held in- by the dustrial commission to compensable. widow, His this respond- ent, was on October 21, awarded compensation at the rate of
1Reported in 245 N. 145.W. subject statutory week from date of death, his
limitation. began paying the insurer the instalments day the commission’s order. the insurer
provided On *2 respondent 1928, $2,841.60 compensation 2, to February 2,1931. This amount was in of the instalments the sum have been paid Bespondent which should without interest. refused 1932, the tender because it did not April 10, include the paid $2,841.60 she was the to right without her to claim prejudice interest. February 8, 1932, judgment in was entered the district court under 4318, for aggregate the sum of the instalments, plus § interest at the legal to rate, being $2,841.60 assumed that the be credited as of February 2, 1931. by this whether or not question
The raised is sole legal bear compensation of interest at the rate from the instalments they under the act should provisions compensation date when paid. have been (1 duty 1923 it the of Mason, 4269,
G. S. makes the em § necessity to commence of without the ployer payment compensation liability of or is any agreement Compensation order. this state a of of employment, compensation out the contract and the arising act a of v. part every employment. becomes contract of Mathison L. R. A. Minneapolis Ry. 286, 71, 1916D, St. Co. 126 Minn. 148 N. W. ex rel. 139 Minn. 412; Court, State Chambers District 166 205, 185, N. A. L. W. 3 R. 1347. The act compensation makes no men tion interest in delay Mason, case of G. S. 1923 payment, but 1927) 7036, imposes damages interest at six cent as for failure to a debt when pay due. was a
Here contract debt dne at compensation the times when the should act, instalments have been under provisions the 'of the see no reason it should why not, any we other like bear debt, at the legal rate when it is decided that debt existed. The own, Iowa Avorkmen’s compensation act, like our no proAdsion makes interest; but court supreme of that state general has held that the statutory provision for interest on past due the com instalments under past applicable is indebtedness 1270, Iowa, Korn Co. 194 Baking Nester v. H. act. pensation N. W. respective compensation their hold under courts otherwise
Other authority seems the Iowa against acts, weight and perhaps should just more that interest logical it seems more holding; but the contract of legal employ allowed rate on sums that made of a by payable inclusion of the statute due and implied ment court does not act certain. That the commission or subsequent liability a date should not alter the controversy until fact commission the industrial interest. Neither should the may erroneously prevent have in some construed powers cases its might have the court from what the commission law allowing if it. said to the application Anything allowed had been made to contrary Surety in Reese v. 162 Minn. 203 N. W. National Co. is overruled. trial treated as a apparently payment
The court *3 February credit as of first it interest 2, 1931, applying to accrued then applied and to the So there is no allowance principal. interest upon
Judgment affirmed. took no part. C. J.
Wilson, Reargument.
After filed: following opinion On November was Per Curiam. $3,114.40 (this
There due the sum of justly interest) kept and and ; includes defendant $272.80, good. upon justly tender That left the amount to interest thereon from that date clearly and was entitled plaintiff amount The court entry judgment. computed until the called It is immaterial whether the interest $272.80 $16.64. amount due and the amount tendered. or the balance between the Strictly the latter. When tendered sum Avas speaking, was February on the sum of 7, 1931, the amount due applied upon unpaid, remained should be on that sum $272.80 from that on. (afterwards Defendant’s accepted tender claim) on the apply claim, made a cut-off in leaving a balance then due. We adhere to previous our decision.
MARY B. LESLIE CITY OF WHITE BEAR LAKE.1 F. Joseph Cowern, appellant. O.
Harvey Sargeant, respondent. Junell, Driscoll & Oakley, Hotoard, Fletcher Charles B. amici filed a curiae, brief support appellant. the contention C. J. Defendant appealed from judgment granted adverse *4 pleadings.
Plaintiff, as a resident and taxpayer city Bear White Lake, prosecutes this city action restrain the issuing re-
1Reported in 243 W.N.