State ex rel. Probst v. Haid

32 Citing cases

  1. Wims v. Hercules Contracting Co.

    235 Mo. App. 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 1939)   Cited 8 times
    In Wim v. Hercules Contracting Co., 235 Mo. App. 1, 123 S.W.2d 225, argument of a similar nature was made in a case involving payment of the attorney fees by the commission in a lump sum for services in securing an award for a widow whose husband had been killed while working for an employer covered by the workmen's compensation law of that state.

    A finding of the commission in favor of awarding attorneys' fees, necessarily implies that the commission found every fact necessary to support such finding. State ex rel. Buttiger v. Haid, 330 Mo. 1030, 51 S.W.2d 1008; State ex rel. Probst v. Haid, 333 Mo. 390; 62 S.W.2d 869; Borgmeier v. Jasper, 67 S.W.2d 791. (a) If appellants were dissatisfied with the finding of facts of the Workmen's Compensation Commission, they should have asked the commission to modify such finding instead of complaining in an appellate court. State ex rel. Probst v. Haid, 333 Mo. 390; 62 S.W.2d 869. (4) The wording of the award does not justify the construction that appellants seek to place upon it, which is, that the attorneys' fees were to be paid as of September 23, 1936.

  2. Kresge Company v. Unemployment Compensation Comm

    162 S.W.2d 838 (Mo. 1942)   Cited 25 times

    The act contemplates findings by the Commission of the constitutive facts essentia to its holdings. Consult State ex rel. v. Haid, 333 Mo. 390, 398[3], 62 S.W.2d 869, 872[3]. We said, as pointed out by the Commission, in A.J. Meyer Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Commission, 348 Mo. 147, 152 S.W.2d 184, 186, that the rule with respect to the facts in Workmen's Compensation Commission review proceedings obtains in Unemployment Compensation Commission review proceedings, viz.: "Findings of fact made by the commission, if sustained by sufficient competent evidence, are, absent fraud, conclusive on appeal . . .'"

  3. State ex Rel. Kroger Grocery v. Hostetter

    339 Mo. 630 (Mo. 1936)   Cited 5 times

    ce in support of the award, and, on the contrary, stresses and relies upon the evidence that is unfavorable to the award and draws inference of fact therefrom against the award, and therefore said opinion is in conflict with the following decisions of this court, which are to the effect that the finding of fact and rulings of Missouri Workmen's Compensation Commission are in the nature of a special verdict and are conclusive upon appeal if supported by any substantial competent evidence, and that the court, in a cause appealed from the commission, must view the evidence most favorable to the award and draw every reasonable inference of fact from such evidence in support of the award: Crutcher v. Curtiss-Robertson Airplane Co., 331 Mo. 169, 52 S.W.2d 1019; Leilich v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 328 Mo. 112, 40 S.W.2d 61; Elsas v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 330 Mo. 596, 50 S.W.2d 130; Doughton v. Marland Refining Co., 331 Mo. 280, 53 S.W.2d 236; Shroyer v. Mo. Live Stock Comm. Co., 332 Mo. 1219; State ex rel. Probst v. Haid, 62 S.W.2d 871. Wayne Ely, Tom Ely, Jr., and Ely Derrick for respondents.

  4. Phillips v. Air Reduction Sales Co.

    337 Mo. 587 (Mo. 1935)   Cited 53 times
    In Phillips, the Court was presented with a similar question as to the propriety of hearing additional evidence to prove that the award was procured by fraud.

    Smith v. Levis-Zukoski Mercantile Co., 14 S.W.2d 470, 223 Mo. App. 743; Barlow v. Shawnee Inv. Co., 48 S.W.2d 35. Mere lawful presence of the employee upon the premises of the employer is not sufficient to make an accident compensable. Smith v. Levis-Zukoski Mercantile Co., 14 S.W.2d 470, 223 Mo. App. 743; Stone v. Blackmer Post Pipe Co., 27 S.W.2d 459, 224 Mo. App. 319; DeMoss v. Evens Howard Fire Brick Co., 37 S.W.2d 961, 225 Mo. App. 473; State ex rel. v. Haid, 62 S.W.2d 869, 333 Mo. 390; Sullivan v. Industrial Comm., 10 P.2d 924. Inferences must be drawn from proven facts, not from conjecture or other inferences. Sexton v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 245 Mo. 254; Felver v. Ry. Co., 216 Mo. 195; Hamilton v. Ry. Co., 250 Mo. 714.

  5. McMain v. Connor Sons Const. Co.

    337 Mo. 40 (Mo. 1935)   Cited 23 times
    In McMain, the Missouri Supreme Court determined a trip taken by George McMain in the course of his employment fell outside the dual purpose doctrine.

    (1) The finding by the commission that the accident in which McMain lost his life did not arise out of and in the course of his employment was a finding of fact and is conclusive if supported by any competent evidence or any reasonable inferences to be drawn from competent evidence. Crutcher v. Curtiss-Robertson Airplane Mfg. Co., 52 S.W.2d 1022, 331 Mo. 169; Vollet v. Fed. Brilliant Sign Co., 49 S.W.2d 201; State ex rel. Probst v. Haid, 62 S.W.2d 869, 333 Mo. 390; Schaefer v. Lowell-Krekeler Gro. Co., 49 S.W.2d 209; Smith v. International Shoe Co., 49 S.W.2d 233; Wetter v. Mechanics Iron Works, 49 S.W.2d 236; Leilich v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 40 S.W.2d 604, 328 Mo. 112; Wheat v. Whitney Son, 34 S.W.2d 158; Sanders v. Central Bldg. Materials Co., 43 S.W.2d 863; Jackson v. Gen. Metal Refg. Co., 43 S.W.2d 865; Duggan v. Toombs-Faye Sash Door Co., 66 S.W.2d 973; Harke v. Haase, 75 S.W.2d 1001.2d The finding of fact by the commission that McMain had gone to Kansas City on November 1st on a purely personal mission was a finding of fact supported by competent evidence and conclusive on appeal.

  6. Lathrop v. Tobin-Hamilton Shoe Mfg. Co.

    402 S.W.2d 16 (Mo. Ct. App. 1966)   Cited 9 times

    For, on judicial review the inquiry is whether, upon the entire record, the Commission reasonably could have made the findings and award under consideration, not whether a contrary conclusion would have been permissible. Leilich v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 328 Mo. 112, 120, 40 S.W.2d 601, 604(3); Damore, supra note 7, 290 S.W.2d at 108 (5); Schulte v. Grand Union Tea Coffee Co., Mo.App., 43 S.W.2d 832, 833(2); Probst v. St. Louis Basket Box Co., Mo.App., 52 S.W.2d 501(1), certiorari quashed, State ex rel. Probst v. Haid, 333 Mo. 390, 62 S.W.2d 869. State ex rel. Probst v. Haid, 333 Mo. 390, 62 S.W.2d 869, 872(2); Staten v. Long-Turner Const. Co., Mo.App., 185 S.W.2d 375, 381(16).

  7. Hickman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

    238 Mo. App. 588 (Mo. Ct. App. 1945)   Cited 4 times

    The award implies a finding of every fact necessary to support it. It is the finding of facts, not the failure to find facts which would defeat the award. State ex rel. Buttiger v. Haid (Mo., Div. 2), 51 S.W.2d 1008; Probst v. St. Louis Basket and Box Company (Mo. App.), 52 S.W.2d 501; State v. Haid (Mo. Div. 1), 62 S.W.2d 869; Hanley v. Carlo Motor Service Company (Mo. App.), 130 S.W.2d 187; Wickstrom v. Industrial Accident Commission (Cal.), 39 P.2d 887; Traub v. Hance (Ind.), 23 N.E.2d 293. While it is true that the statute requires a liberal construction, this does not mean that a claim should be allowed which is not supported by substantial evidence. Tucker v. Daniel Hamm Drayage Co., 171 S.W.2d 781; R.S. Mo. 1939, sec. 3764.

  8. Wilson v. Brownfield Construction Co.

    74 S.W.2d 377 (Mo. Ct. App. 1934)   Cited 9 times

    Neither the circuit court nor any appellate court has any power or authority to make findings of fact in a case arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, that power being exclusively vested in the Compensation Commission, and expressly withheld from the circuit court and appellate court. Sec. 3342, R.S. Mo. 1929; Teague v. Laclede-Christy Clay Products Company (Mo.), 52 S.W.2d 880, 882; Jones v. Century Coal Co. (St. Louis Ct. App.), 46 S.W.2d 196, 198; Beecham v. Greenlease Motor Co. (K.C. Ct. App.), 38 S.W.2d 535, 537. The findings of the Compensation Commission are in the nature of a special verdict, and if supported by any substantial competent evidence the award is conclusive and binding upon both the circuit court and the appellate court upon appeal. Sec. 3242, R.S. Mo. 1929; Leilich v. Chevrolet Motor Co. (Mo.), 40 S.W.2d 601, 604; Hammack v. West Plains Lumber Co. (Spgfd. Ct. App.), 30 S.W.2d 650; Harbour v. Gardner (St. Louis Ct. App.), 38 S.W.2d 295, 297; State ex rel. Probst v. Haid (Mo.), 62 S.W.2d 869, 871; Gillick v. Construction Co. (Mo.), 65 S.W.2d 927, 928. In determining whether or not the evidence is sufficient to support the award, the court must consider only the evidence taken before the Commission, which is most favorable in support of the award, together with all reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom, and must disregard all of the opposing or conflicting evidence.

  9. Haill v. Champion Shoe Mach. Co.

    230 Mo. App. 631 (Mo. Ct. App. 1934)   Cited 7 times

    Payne v. Sullivan County et al., 36 S.W.2d 127; Perry v. J.A. Kreis Sons, 49 S.W.2d 220. (3) (a) A finding by the commission against the employer, and in favor of the claimants, was a finding for the claimants on the whole evidence. State ex rel. Buttiger v. Haid et al. (Mo. Sup.), 51 S.W.2d 1008; State ex rel. Probst v. Haid et al. (Mo. Sup.), 62 S.W.2d 869; Doughton v. Maryland Ref. Co. (Mo. Sup.), 53 S.W.2d 236. (b) Such finding of the commission has the force of the verdict of a jury. Payne v. Sullivan County, 36 S.W.2d 127; Perry v. J.A. Kreis Sons et al., 49 S.W.2d 220; State ex rel. Probst v. Haid, 62 S.W.2d 869. (4) The provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act should receive a liberal construction.

  10. Aldrich v. Kroger Grocer Baking Co.

    69 S.W.2d 1101 (Mo. Ct. App. 1934)   Cited 1 times

    Since the evidence heard and considered by the compensation commission, relating to the question of the cause of the injury and the time it was received, is conflicting, or was at least determined by the commission, to be insufficient to support a finding for claimant, upon the allegations in the written claim made and filed with the commission, therefore the question submitted to this court becomes one requiring it to be considered by us, if at all, on the question of the weight of the evidence, which neither the circuit court nor this court is empowered to do in such cases, but on the contrary is specifically prohibited from doing. The law upon the proposition mentioned has been so often and distinctly enunciated, that we are citing only a few of the latest cases in support of our views thereon, to-wit: Weiler et ux. v. Peerless White Lime Co. (Mo. App.), 64 S.W.2d 125; State ex rel. Probst v. Haid et al. (Mo. Sup.), 62 S.W.2d 869; King v. Mark Twain Hotel (Mo. App.), 60 S.W.2d 675; Lanahan v. Press Brick Co. (Mo. App.), 55 S.W.2d 327; Eiser v. Painting Co. (Mo. App.), 60 S.W.2d 636. While there is a conflict of testimony, yet there is sufficient competent testimony, which if believed, supports the finding of the commission, that the claimant failed to prove that the accident causing Aldrich's injury, arose out of his employment as alleged in his claim.