*1 Wors, Relator, the relation of Missouri at Charles and Edward Dee Becker Hostetter, William Jefferson D. Judges Appeals the St. Louis J. McCullen, . 124 (2d) 1072. S. W. Banc, February 1939. Court en *2 Foristel, Mudd, Blair & Habenicht for relator.
Anderson, Gilbert, Wolfort, Allen & respondents. Bierman for *4 Maurice J. O’Sullivan and Leo T. Schwartz, curiae; amici J. Fran- cis O’Sullivan of counsel. *5 Indemnity Company, & Lashly
Jacob M. Hartford Accident curiae. amicus Labor, Kansas Langsdale for Missouri Federation Cliff Labor Union City Kansas Central
City Building Trades Council Building Trades St. Louis Council Bartley Mayfield & Union, amici curiae. and Labor Central Trades St. Louis *6 ELLISON, bring Appeals J . Certiorari St. Louis to the ing up al., (2d) 1199, the record Wors Tarlton et *7 injuries. damages a suit at common law In personal $7500 for for addition respondents, to briefs for the relator the we are the and Langsdale, favored with four briefs filed amici curiae: Mr. Cliff representing Labor, City the Missouri State Federation of Kansas the Building Union; Council the Kansas City Trades and Central Labor g representin Bartley Mayfield, Building Messrs. and St. Louis the Union; St. Trades Council and Trades and Labor the Central Louis Lashly, In representing Mr. M. the Accident and Jacob Hartford and Leo T. demnity Company; and Messrs. Maurice J. O’Sullivan Schwartz, defending are County who in Jackson Circuit Court the questions proceeding. involving suits the main raised in the instant only sketchy facts, they are rather give We shall a review of as the fully J., in un- reported opinion record stated the Becker, Development Company der review. Industrial The Midwest and Co.) (hereinafter engaged erecting the was a build- Midwest called Louis, into Missouri. It a ing on it in St. entered land owned excavating it- reserved to L. do the but contract with G. Tarlton to consequence work, supervision of the self control and as the proceeding, the doc- purposes‘of which, it be said the may respondeat Midiwest superior applies Co., between the trine of further, Midwest into a employees Tarlton. The Co. entered the (hereinafter Company with Illinois Terminal separate contract tracks Co.) temporary railroad build certain called Terminal to transport excavated material upon premises, and to to and com- involving a movement in interstate Illinois, thereby Venice, to employee relator, Wors, an March On merce. railroad in a Co., “trimming” leveling off the dirt or Terminal operated by one of a steam shovel being loaded, as was car against him and full of dirt employees dumped Tarlton’s shovel injured .him. Work Missouri mentioned were under parties of the All four injuries sustaining weeks' Act. Two after Compensation men’s aforesaid, therefor compensation partial began receive Wors filed with claim he Co., employer, the on a Terminal immediate
his made agreement temporary Commission, upon a based amount full agree as to the Being company. unable to with the Commission formal claim with him, filed a compensation due Evi answer. filed Terminal Co. 1931, to which the September, partial temporary amade heard, and the' Commission dence was hearing December further called for The cause was award.. stipu counsel, their the parties appearance and, on entered, lation a final and favor-of award-was conclusive-total in. Wor.s $2276.62 compensation -for .aid, for. and medical under (Mo.-Stat. Ann., p.-.8267).** was,, Statutes 1929 There course, appeal no that award. : Midwest Co. -from Tarlton and the parties proceeding were not made to that and the not defense was. interposed before Commission when, interstate, injured. Wors was he was .commerce Compensation proceeding pending, .brought While the suit Wors court, aforesaid, August, -1931,against-Tarlton in.the circuit -. Co., damages injuries. Midwest same immediate His for..the joined suit, employer, Co., party was never as a Terminal Wors final undetermined when .obtained aforesaid December,-1933.-. award in . ... Co.-.thereupon interposed plea The Midwest defendant of res judicata compensation damage suit, claiming award to against-i-t, although, party Wors barred his action it. was n . proceeding. answered..,(1) compensation Wors Work- Compensation. make, men’s Commission had no *8 (Mo. Ann., 1929 3310, in view of Stat. award Section Statutes injuries were interstate p.- 8245),- since received in commerce his Act; Employers’ governed by Liability exclusively and the Federal if (2) compensation proceeding and award otherwise that even the against in this operate estoppel, as could not do so case would an company a party to the com- the Midwest Co. because that was it; (3), by that proceeding, (Wors) was not bound pensation and suit, damage against right the the Midwest Co. the to maintain had Compensation Act, party,” of because independent the as a “third carried, compensation in- employer, his immediate the Terminal Co. .Co, exempted was surance, consequence which the Midwest stranger employment compensation liability to the from and became 3308, Revised (d) the of subseetion of Section under last sentence 8242). state Ann., unnecessary It is (Mo. p. 1929 to Statutes Stat. dropped later out of the Tarlton since he issues as to defendant the . controversy here. far the case as the so concerns Tarlton of both the contentions upheld circuit The court non- involuntary plaintiff Wors took Co., whereupon Midwest The same aside. motion leave to move to set with suit -for both defendants. judgment was entered .was denied filed Appeals, affirmed St. Louis judges respondent The Co., to the defendant Midwest court as of the judgment trial Tarl- as to defendant the cause reversed and remanded but ruling the Midwest contends that Wors, here, as relator ton. to. court. controlling this decisions contravenes Co. n respondent judges that Work- ruling asserts the first He Rehearing. Opinion Motion for **See
954 Compensation
men’s
against the
proceeding
damage
his
barred
suit
Co.,
Ry.
Midwest
holdings Gieseking
contravenes our
v. Litchfield
Co.,
tion Act this cases within except (Ital- provisions any those covered law. exclusively federal Further, Employers’ Liability 55 of Federal ours.) ics 45) “any regula- (U. A., contract, rule, Title Act C. denounces be whatsoever, purpose of which shall tion or device intent liability exempt any common enable carrier itself Gie- chapter” makes void. The created it to extent Employers’ seking Liability case Federal Act is exclusive holds the transportation; acceptance interstate in the field of and that the Compensation therefore will not bar under State Act benefits injuries brought personal damages for for the same suit under act, they fact in interstate were in received while Federal if goes say: on to “at United States commerce. The case least contrary. yet ruled” has never Supreme Court decision, argu distinguish Gieseking respondents Counsel (of ing there Commission no determination injuries re Illinois) which were benefits that case that in were not came Act and ceived within We The Giese commerce. think correct. flicted interstate *9 by “acceptance the only the of benefits” opinion speaks king by says Illinois Industrial plaintiff nothing about decision the and in engaged question plaintiff was whether the Commission of the rec injured. an examination the commerce when And interstate accept was there did to plaintiff that all the the cause shows ord in by Illinois Act. There according a schedule the fixed benefits judgment the Commission—no by review Industrial no arbitration or Gieseking not case is any sort. we conclude the So decision a final determination authority question whether controlling the claim that a Compensation Commission by Missouri Workmen’s the as operate intrastate commerce will in injuries were received ant’s brought a suit prosecution bar and the estoppel by judgment, an damages Liability Employers1' Act Federal under the himby the authority effect may to the injuries though be it the same — contract, estoppel by operate as will of benefits acceptance or conduct.
955 On the other hand, respondents the opinion the of the in Wors ease State ex cites rel. Brewen-Clark v. Missouri Syrup Co. Commission, Mo. 900, (2d) 897, 899, 900. by This case holds that an made the award ‘‘ scope authority Commission while acting within the of its determines rights parties effectually judgment as as a secured regular legal binding a procedure, is as it is judgment, and as until regularly validity questioned set aside a or its in manner.” proper question involved, While this case discuss particular does not here authority general is at award least to effect that an judgment'of binding Commission as court in line would be the same circumstance. This is in with Section (Mo. p. provides Ann., 8275), Statutes Stat. which and that: final award of the commission shall “the be conclusive dispute days binding party thirty unless either to the shall within ” court. . appeal date of the final award the circuit . . .the C., respondents their brief R. I. & P. Counsel for in further cite Ry. Schendel, Sup. 70 L. Ed. Co. v. 270 U. S. Ct. case, supra, Gieseking anent the
decided 1926—this statement in the had years later, States' Supreme decided ten that the United compensa- acceptance benefits state yet never ruled the under injuries damage personal same for the tion act would bar a suit Respondents Employers’ Liability Act. brought under Federal Gieseking case theory Federal thé thus refer this case on Supreme Court, there- endeavoring United States to follow the ques- ease even on the by making proper invoke the Schendel proceeding. certiorari conflict, tion of covering cases. decision, two opinion one in the Schendel
There was Railway Iowa, were Elder, employees of Co. Hope both and administrator, fatally. Hope’s injured former accident, in an in Minnesota under Railway Co. Schendel, and Elder sued Railway pro Co. instituted Liability Act. The Employers’ Federal Compensation Act in Iowa under the employees ceedings as to both challenged Hope’s widow Elder of that state. ground proceedings on the in both Industrial Commission of the Iowa in interstate engaged commerce employees were two intrastate Hope held injured. An arbitral board appealed She the widow. compensation to awarded commerce Iowa same, and thence to Commissioner, who found to the finding was affirmed. upon like award Court; where District invoking the de Railway Co. was then pleaded This fact damage Minne suit,- but the Minnesota judicata, res fense of adversely thereon, ruled Courts Supreme sota District *10 Supreme on certiorari. Court United States the taken was cause holding courts; Iowa that Minnesota the the That court reversed compensation pro in jurisdiction decide had Court District 956
eeeding Hope engaged whether in intrastate commerce when was injured; engaged, since that it was had so before decided controlling. judgment Minnesota contrary, courts ruled its was proceeding The Elder deputy an commis- was submitted to Iowa also, engaged sioner, who that was in com- Elder, found intrastate merce. an application by But review the Industrial Commis- sioner by statute, was Elder the matter under the Iowa filed finally had been Minne- judgment not when the determined damage sota suit was In of that the Iowa rendered. view the fact proceeding Supreme was in refused fieri, the United States to decide Iowa Industrial Com- what effect of a decision ripened missioner have if had into an enforceable would been award-, judgment of the Minnesota and affirmed courts case. issue be that in this Schendel decision the
But it is to noted whether engaged squarely commerce employees in interstate were tribunals, presented decided Iowa whereas in to and' presented instant no issue Missouri case such Workmen’s n Compensation respondents’' opinion Commission. The states “ only ‘working on record of Commission shows that Wors was ” leveling injured. says a flat car off Relator that de- dirt’ prives estoppel the Commission’s decision effect They question commerce; respondents say of interstate it does not. opinion com- point final out their that the Commission’s award “ ‘as pensation Wors recover accident found was entitled to ” Compensation Law,’ provided Missouri question must Commission therefore have resolved the declare i. favor, e., must found Wors was in its own have its injured. interstate, commerce when intrastate, doctrine of decisions This latter view with the accords record) a will be (of wherein is lower court court held consistently jurisdictional question have or other deemed to decided find rendered, though express there was no judgment with even necessarily thereon, question such involved ing if a decision of v. announced; Loving rel. State ex at arriving conclusion (6); 1033, State ex 453, (2d) 53 W. 1036 Trimble, Mo. (d), Deposit Co., & 317 Mo. Fidelity rel. v. Gott Trimble, 318 Mo. Gordon (6); ex rel. v. 83, 88 S. W. not, however, writer so far as the have 478. We S. W. way application of that doctrine to either on the aware, passed Commission, quasi-ju the Workmen’s holdings made conclu final are whose awards tribunal dieial administrative in Hoffman 3342, supra. It was ruled statute, sive (2d) 230(3) Co., 74 Fed. H. & H. Railroad Y., N. N. accompanies findings regularity’’’ “presumption no such ruled has not this court But since Commission.
957 point on the we holding cannot say Appeals the of the Court of' con- onr travenes decisions.
On authority Trimble, supra, of State ex rel. Ward v. rel. Compagnie Transatlantique Falkéhhainer, ex Generale v. supra, relator the further if contends that even Com the Workmen’s pensation general jurisdiction Commission had "the pass ques to on engaged'in tion whether Wors commerce, was intrastate find and did he jurisdiction engaged, yet so make finding had no that particular ease all below because the evidence showed was engaged commerce; respondent in interstate judges and the should accordingly. ease, have ruled 327 l. S. The Ward Mo. c. 39 (2d) (8), bound, certiorari, l. c. 374 we holds while are that on by Appeals’ facts, yet the of the Court conclusion on we are not bound decisions; legal its conclusion on those if it facts conflicts our with case, 309 230-1, (3-5) The Falkenhainer Mo. l. 760 c. S. W. l. c. jurisdiction depends facts, court’s upon disputed holds that when’a findings questioned collaterally; its thereon cannot be when the but jurisdictional undisputed, question jurisdiction facts are the of be may collaterally. comes a matter 'law and be raised Conceding general propositions purpose these 'for of dis the cussion, they we are to see relator unable for he has help any court, referred us decision on facts sim of this based or like involved, ilar employee the in those here holding interstate commerce. he' He The authorities does these. cite are calls as Harris Co., attention to decisions siieh Mo. Pac. Railroad 342 Mo. we (2d) 988, 991, declaring 114 W. S. must follow rulings Suprefiie of the United States applying Employers’ Act; Federal Liability & O. W. and then cites B. Ry. Burtch, Co. v. 263 U. S. 68 L. Sup. Ed. Ct. 165, holding general loading unloading terms or shipment by employees closely interstate related carrier is so transportation practically part to interstate to be thereof. This appears merits, to us of respondents’ opinion to be criticism on its showing and not a our of conflict with decisions based similar on facts, which, alone, overturning would on justify opinion us ' '. certiorari.
Furthermore, respondents’ opinion states put facts which the case ruling below even the Burtch outside the decided case Supreme Respondents quote relator’s petition States Court'. United damage alleging' loading in his suit as the work of the dirt into independently supervision-or di any railroad cars “was done supervision rection, right part of” the or'direction'on Co., Terminal “was' done"under' sole afid that work and'ex direction, supervision and control of'the defendants”' —Tari-' clusive have, then,'á 'We case in-which ton Midwest Co. the em doing loading'Under exclusive eon ployee carrier trol of shipper; Corpus Juris, it is said in section page 225, complete anything cannot if to be “Delivery be remains shipper way.” done goods before can sent their be authority We cited no holding are loading these be of inter part circumstances work would state commerce. urged by
The even point second of conflict relator is that *12 if the find Commission to had injured, and he in intrastate did find commerce when still decision not because was not could bind the Midwest Co. party proceeding; the compensation a bind and since did not him, Wors, Midwest Co. it the reason that a could bind judgment litigated controversy binding be of must on both sides a operate by judgment as estoppel order to bind either and to an cases). urges (citing estopped In other words relator he is not an prosecuting damage against Company the Midwest suit on theory, merely the com prosecuted interstate commerce because against party, Co., an pensation the Terminal proceeding another theory. opin Respondents intrastate answer in their contention by saying compensation proceeding ion v'as bind decision ing upon quasi benefit of Midwest Co. and inured as privy, provisions of in view of Section Statutes 8242). (Mo. Ann., Stat. p. assignment conflict, which is brings
This us to relator’s third of be closely second, just outlined, so related to the that the two must together. privity there between considered The denies relator compensation Terminal proceed- the Midwest Co. Co. and the first sub- ing, (a) part of insists that while subsection (d) liable for 3308, supra, made Midwest Co. section of compensation employee subcontractor, of its the Ter- to Wors as (d) completely yet minal sentence of said subsection Co., last made it suable exempted liability Co. from all Midwest covering party,” because the Terminal Co. carried insurance “third says: (re- liability Wors. sentence “No such This its immediate if mote) provided, this section the em- employer shall be liable as employer.” intermediate immediate or ployee was insured ‘‘ been Court, far as we This have in his brief: so Relator declares respect 3308 with (d) of find, has never construed subsection able to there concluding clause or insurance effect particularly to the of pre prescribed in the respective liabilities of, upon the relations “ ’’ say: goes Conflict then on to of section. ceding He portions this to follow (respondents) of be in the failure found must therefore for the statutes law construction of of principles rules and general then referred to number We are Court.” this laid down principles law general rules and announcing court of this decisions statutes. for the construction
We cannot consider any Where of these. meaning a statute is debatable cannot we on certiorari overturn Appeals’ a Court of merely construction thereof may because-we think it violates-some ' general canon recognized-in construction -our decisions. If it were we could be otherwise rulings asked to-review-their on all-the stat utes, bonds, policies, wills, deeds,-contracts' insurance and other-writ instruments, ten them, come before hinge for all would on some general rule of We construction. have' held repeatedly that Appeals Courts of right have the same we (within range have respective jurisdictions) our think to construe statutes. Whether we right their construction wrong, we cannot interfere on certiorari unless we previously given have a different construction to the stat ute. If the construction turns application on its specific facts, we have must construed it with reference to same or similar facts. Cox, rel. ex Arndt Mo. (2d) 1079, S. W. [State , 1082; State rel. Superior ex Mineral J., Co. v. 337 Mo. Hostetter (2d) 743, 85 S. W. course, Of plainly a statute 744.] only can one meaning have under canons of Construction established court, and a Court Appeals gives it another meaning, we may interfere because necessary there the effect of such erroneous *13 holding is violate the canons of much construction —as so if as they expressly were denounced. But that is not here the case and n seldom occurs.
Amici curiae have numerous bearing cited cases from other states pro con Obviously, and on the construction of statute. can we question not consider them on-a of argument conflict. The ad is Compensation vanced that composite, merger since- our á Act is of provisions from like states, borrowed of other we acts therefore should light interpretative construe it in the court decisions from those construing That be true if independ states. would we were the act ently; determining here we whether but are St. Louis Court-of Appeals opinion ruling contravenes of this Incidently court. we say banc may recently Patti, court en has ruled Bunner v. (2d) 274, 153, (d) 343 Mo. S. W. that subsection Section 3308 121 Compensation put of the will upon not bear construction Act by by question relator. It is the first decision this court on the case after trial of below. We was decided this refer to only expression proposition general on an our views that no as recog law for principles of the construction of statutes rules and respondents’ opinion. court were by this violated nized concur, Finding conflict, quashed. of certiorari All no our writ Clark, JJ., voting- Douglas not because not members of except cause -was submitted. court por Rehearing.
On Motion re point PER CURIAM:—Relator a new raises his.motion hearing. by He final award made to-him contends the as operate cannot on December Comriiission non, vel estoppel by an judgment the. of interstate issue commerce on by Commission fixed and determined because award was.not parties, stipulation -compromise between was based on a but Ann., (Mo. 3333, under Statutes Stat. made Section Revised .voluntary 8267). p. approval The mere the. Commission says “jurisdictional” thereof, determination settlement was not ex rel. Workmen’s Com on Saunders v. relator. He relies sus Commission, (2d) 67, Mo. 63.S. pensation .that opinion says respondents’ tain his contravenes contention, and - decision. . chapter that-nothing in the provides Section 3333 thereunder preventing parties.to shall be claims as construed thereof; entering voluntary agreements in settlement but into agreements- approved until Commis no be valid such shall shall, sion; approve, such and that settlements .Commission they rights parties of the under unless are accord with the (Mo. chapter. section-, A later Statutes award”, “any review Ann., p. 8273), permits Stat. the Commission a-change made, ground ¿in condition theretofore . employee . jured . . injured employee temporary.agree- made a. Saunders case In the compensation,-and employer partial thereafter for- ment filed with Compensation” acknowledging receipt, Receipt a “Final .of from, employer released'the stated- sum in-.consideration which .by reason- of accident liability Compensation Act all- under (Italics- ours.) provided in act.” involved,-“subject said to review Commission, approved apparently on -mere The -the settlement was filed, years employee with the. .Com- inspection. Over the- four later n - *14 change application ground review on the of a mission for. application, condition. The consider Commission refused.to execution, theory without it was because and' foregoing Receipt Compensation operated- of the Final approval for complete employers’ liability, as a and. final of'the settlement under ' brought 3333, supra. Thereupon employee the. Section mandamus jurisdiction, compel accept of his court to the Commission to this (cid:127) application for review. . . opinion in a unanimous Section 3333 en banc conceded The court subject liability “a the ap- final settlement.of does authorize all subject commission,” which is not to review under proval of the words, notwithstanding “any use of award” 3340, Section Receipt Final there therein; held the in evi- but deuce “was not a 3333, settlement under Section and therefore was subject ground to review changed on the condition, pursuant (or 3340” Section have would been if the application had filed been time). The main reason for holding this final that the re-- ceipt expressly “subject recited it was provided to review as in said ’’’ opinion act. But the took notice of another case: Brown v. Corn Refining (Mo. Products App.), Co. S. (2d) 55 W. where receipt containing the same words was nevertheless final treated because other showing*' evidence it was to be intended so.
In the instant proof ease the is abundant receipt the final executed relator Wors intended to be conclusive. In first receipt place, expressly employer releases the all liability provided “as under Section com- Statutes promise lump-sum settlement.” Further when the be- parties went again referee, fore the it was stated settlement was final as contem- plated by Section question: and the referee asked Wors this Wors, “Mr. you stipulation you have heard do understand by entering lump-sum this compromise your into settlement that closes forever you case under Act cannot under reopen the ease?” circumstances Wors And relator answered: stipulation “Yes.” Thereafter the award based on the made by the Commission. nothing is holding
There in the Saunders ease such settlement under Section is a final award. The effect of decision contrary. section, A approved is to the settlement under the Commission, ordinary is even by the conclusive than an more award disputed evidence, made Commission on because the latter subject change condition, ground on the is to review whereas Under the express the former is irrevocable. terms of necessary make approval of the Commission the settlement approved why there is no And when so executed reason valid. judicata estoppel a claim of not be the basis of res it should judgment. relation of at of Missouri Rail Missouri-Kansas-Texas Hopkins Corporation, Relator, B. Shain, road Company, g Judges Ewin C. of Reynolds, Bland Robert M. Kan (2d) City Appeals 1141. Court of sas . 124 Banc, February 7, en 1939.