*1 604 (Code (b), supra) Ann. 81A-155 ground
third of the statute some de- judges open it to the trial simply would leave others, guidelines provided. with no open and not faults saying provi- Court there must be Supreme In effect the going action neglect, dential cause or excusable of discretion. As Jus- is an abuse beyond guideposts those case, supra: states in the recent Sanders aptly tice Nichols adjudged this should be sufficient "If such an excuse as default, there would be opening one to authorize the could not be set judgments few cases in which default stronger And much excuse was offered yet, aside.” judice. than in the Neither Court Sanders case case sub absolutely Court has been con- Supreme nor the Appeals but the trend in the Court of holdings, Ap- sistent in its to the has been to accord liberal construction peals Supreme while the trend in the Court question, statute require strictly. Supreme has been to same construed correct; correct or Court’s construction is but whether not, court the decision of the Supreme is bound Court, Myers, as to decisions divided bench. Moss (1) (76 Lawler, 768); Ins. Co. Ga. v. SE Life (85 211 Ga.
47308. FULTON INDUSTRIES v. KNIGHT. appearance In a of this case we superior reversed the court in a death denying compensation case basis of fact and of erroneous directed be recommitted to the board for rendition of a proper Industries, v. Fulton Knight board, remand and with- upon evidence, of fact that hearing any new premises the deceased died from cardiac arrest on the of walking which resulted his exertion and down a of stairs at least four .times on the and awarded thereto” "shortly prior of death and day af- court superior claimant' widow attorney fees and claimant and awarded firmed court. Held: superior to the first enumeration disagree employer’s 1. We *2 the of fact are insuf- findings maintains that error which to conclusion as to the board’s ultimate support ficient un- to make required that the board is compensability; findings fact the ultimate findings supporting derlying sup- and findings not do. are sufficient did The that the by They employment, show ported evidence. attack while at work which a heart suffered employee descending and stairs climbing resulted exertion that he died of an accident the ultimate conclusion and the of his arising employ- or course injury and that is entitled to his widow underlying that board must make argument the to as well as medical tes- respect lay testimony with the was finding to its that death timony support ultimate All evi- by cardiac arrest is without merit. the caused dence, medical, to no conclusion lay points as well as than death was caused cardiac arrest. other that walked and board found as fact deceased It to death. "shortly” prior down stairs his the "shortly,” that the of the term contended use death occurred at 2:00 board misread the evidence as than one half the ascent p.m., more two and hours after time or and in view of this descent of stairs therefore lapse, climbing logi- the stairs could not be event "shortly” or inferred cally reasonably happening as to A included in the record does death. death certificate "shortly” the time as 2 The term reflect of death p.m. of time is a relative term and Webster has defined point the facts of this as short interval of time. Under that we that the board erred in say cannot "a two and one half hours is short interval” time. to find- in that the board failed make a alleged 3. Error is 114- required by of notice Code ing question 303. While there is absence of this no finding, issue as to notice was collapsed raised below. The deceased on and employer’s premises supervisor his testified he on the very was aware same day that "some- to thing” at happened deceased plant employee had died. This evidence demands that the employer was on notice of an placed injury employee arising out course employment. did did establish that it not receive notice that a claim for compensation would be made until more days than 30 the employee’s required after death. The notice need not be given a view claiming compen- Ford, sation. Davison-Paxon Co. 88 Ga. App. The absence of finding on notice is not cause for reversal where the facts undisputed are that the employer given timely notice of injury. It is not to remand necessary a case to the board because of its failure to state of fact on where issues facts record are undisputed. Lee v. General Acci- *3 (c) (144 Group, dent 4. There is no merit contention that deci-
sion by this court accepted by the board aas man- date to rule in favor widow. The record shows that performed the board its statutory duty. The mere fact that it found in of favor the widow after of reversal earlier award in of favor not does alone it indicate abdicated its duties all consider evidence and to make of appropriate findings 5. The of attorney fees and the of
appeal Questions are not authorized. appeal raised on grounds substance and the are not to- appeal tally Arnold, unreasonable. Commonwealth Ins. Co. v. As to the reasonable- ness of the is persuasive somewhat to recall this appealed totally and affirmed dif- ferent from that one case which was ap- pealed and We will the judgment reversed. affirm below with direction to aside set so much the judgment as and expenses. fees attorney award of for an provides Code 6-1801 delay for under damages for The motion denied. J., Evans, Stolz, concurs. with direction.
Judgment affirmed J., specially. concurs
Argued July 5, 1972 Decided October Rehearing 21, 1972. denied November Lowe, Williston Kohler, Martin & Smith, Cohen, Ringel, White, for appellant. C. Thurman, for Feldman, appellee. Marjorie C.
Albert P. in the judg- I concur concurring specially. Judge, Evans, 5 of the court, as to Division the trial but another in- This is specially. I concur majority opinion, fees, attorney attorney plaintiff’s depriving stance of prac- entire area a re-examination and I believe attorney fees in order. I favor allowance tice is difficult to cases, increasingly yet becomes proper Assembly should the General Perhaps effect to same. give to attor- is entitled litigant out those instances when spell not be they may so language, fees in unmistakable ney court, now the as is attorney by taken from an away prevailing practice. v. THE STATE.
47509. VINSON case, which resulted homicide 1. In this voluntary manslaugh- for in the conviction of defendant were admitted ter, of the victim the shirt and trousers *4 was the absence objection objection. evidence over clothing preserved that the showing from the deceased. condition when removed It was shown clothing was relevant admissible. deceased at the time the clothes were worn body, particular were removed from the death