From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Finkel v. Onli-Wa Fixture Co.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Nov 19, 1951
121 Ind. App. 622 (Ind. Ct. App. 1951)

Opinion

No. 18,172.

Filed November 19, 1951.

1. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION — Proceedings To Secure Compensation — Appearance — General Appearance by Defendants — Gave Board Jurisdiction of Parties Not of Subject Matter. — In a proceeding to secure workmen's compensation, the voluntary general appearance of the defendants gave the Industrial Board jurisdiction of the parties, but it did not give the Board jurisdiction of the subject matter, for such jurisdiction must be derived from the compensation act. p. 624.

2. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION — Proceedings To Secure Compensation — Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law — Finding of Foreign State Employment Contract — Board Not Necessarily Deprived of Jurisdiction. — In a proceeding to secure workmen's compensation, the fact that a contract of employment was entered into in another state does not prevent the applicability of the Indiana Workmen's Compensation Act and deprive the Industrial Board of jurisdiction. p. 625.

3. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION — Proceedings To Secure Compensation — Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law — Finding That Employer Incorporated in Another State — Board Not Deprived of Jurisdiction. — In a proceeding to secure workmen's compensation, the fact that the employer was incorporated in another state did not prevent the applicability of the Indiana Workmen's Compensation Act and deprive the Industrial Board of jurisdiction where it appeared that the employer was authorized to do business in Indiana. p. 625.

4. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION — Employees Within Act — Need Not Be Resident of State. — An employee may be an Indiana employee covered by the provisions of the Indiana Workmen's Compensation Act though his permanent residence is elsewhere. p. 625.

5. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION — Compensable Injuries — Injury or Death Outside State — No Bar to Recovery. — In order to be entitled to compensation it is not necessary that the injury by accident or that the death occur in Indiana. Burns' 1940 Replacement, § 40-1220. p. 625.

6. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION — Proceedings To Secure Compensation — Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law — Failure To Find Whether Contract Contemplated Service in State — Conclusion No Indiana Employer Not Supported by Findings — Cause Remanded. — In a proceeding for workmen's compensation, where the Industrial Board made findings of fact that the employer was a foreign corporation authorized to do business in Indiana, the employee was a resident of Illinois, the contract was entered into in Illinois and death by accident occurred in Illinois, but failed to find whether the contract of employment contemplated performance of service in Indiana in whole or in part, the conclusion of law stated by the Board that the employer was not an Indiana employer and therefore they were without jurisdiction of the cause, was not supported by the findings of fact and the Appellate Court would remand the cause with instructions to make a further finding of facts. p. 625.

From the Industrial Board of Indiana.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Rose B. Finkel, as claimant, against Onli-Wa Fixture Company, employer, and the General Accident, Fire Assurance Corporation, insurer, to recover compensation for the death of her husband. From an order dismissing the action for want of jurisdiction, claimant appeals.

Reversed and remanded with instructions. By the court in banc.

Isidor Kahn, Harry P. Dees; and Kahn, Dees, Donovan Kahn (of counsel), all of Evansville, for appellant.

Henry L. Humrichouser, of South Bend, for appellee.


Appellant filed her application asking an award of compensation under the Indiana Workmen's Compensation Act by reason of the death of her husband.

The full Industrial Board found:

"That on the 17th day of March, 1949, plaintiff's decedent, Asher O. Finkel, died while performing services for defendant Onli-Wa Fixture Company, an Illinois corporation, in the capacity of an official of said defendant corporation.

"It is further found that defendant Onli-Wa Fixture Company was an Illinois corporation authorized to do business in the State of Indiana; that plaintiff's decedent and plaintiff and all corporate owners of such defendant were residents of the State of Illinois; that the chief office of said corporation was in the State of Illinois; that decedent's contract of employment was executed in the State of Illinois; that he died in the State of Illinois; that the Industrial Board of Indiana does not have jurisdiction of said cause."

The board entered an order dismissing appellant's action for want of jurisdiction, from which order of dismissal appellant prosecutes this review.

The application for compensation in this case was in the usual form, alleging that the decedent died as a proximate result of personal injuries received by him by reason of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment by appellee Onli-Wa Fixture Company as a salesman. The insurance carrier was joined as a party defendant. The appellees appeared generally and introduced evidence.

The voluntary general appearance of appellees gave the board jurisdiction of the parties, although such an appearance did not give the board jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the 1. action. Jurisdiction of the subject-matter must be derived from the compensation Act. Bishop v. International Sugar Feed Co. (1928), 87 Ind. App. 509, 162 N.E. 71.

It is apparent that the board dismissed appellant's action because it concluded that the employer herein, on the basis of the facts found by it, was not an Indiana employer. However, the board did not find sufficient facts from which such conclusion could be properly reached.

The fact that a contract of employment was entered into in another state does not prevent the applicability of the Indiana Workmen's Compensation Act. 2, 3. Johns-Manville, Inc. v. Thrane (1923), 80 Ind. App. 432, 141 N.E. 229; Hagenback, etc., Show Co. v. Randall (1921), 75 Ind. App. 417, 126 N.E. 501. Neither is the fact that the appellee Onli-Wa Fixture Company is an Illinois corporation in this case material. It had localized itself, or qualified to do business in this state. Johns-Manville, Inc. v. Thrane, supra. This case differs in that respect from the cases of Darsch v. Thearle Duffield, etc., Co. (1922), 77 Ind. App. 357, 133 N.E. 525; Norman v. Hartman Furn., etc., Co. (1926), 84 Ind. App. 173, 150 N.E. 416; and Finkley v. Eugene Saenger Tailoring Shop (1935), 100 Ind. App. 549, 196 N.E. 536.

An employee may be an Indiana employee covered by the provisions of the Indiana Workmen's Compensation Act though his permanent residence is elsewhere. Johns-Manville, Inc. 4, 5. v. Thrane, supra. It is not necessary that the injury by accident or that the death occur in Indiana. "Every employer and employee under this act shall be bound by the provisions hereof whether injury by accident or death resulting from such injury occurs within the state or in some other state or in a foreign country." Burns' 1940 Replacement, § 40-1220; Ben Wolf Truck Lines v. Bailey (1936), 102 Ind. App. 208, 1 N.E.2d 660; Carl Hagenback, etc., Shows Co. v. Leppert (1917), 66 Ind. App. 261, 117 N.E. 531.

The finding in this case is silent as to whether the contract contemplated performance of service in Indiana in whole or in part. A finding on this subject is essential. Darsch v. 6. Thearle Duffield, etc., Co., supra; Fisher v. Mossman-Yarnelle Co. (1938), 105 Ind. App. 22, 13 N.E.2d 343; Calkins v. Service Spring Co. (1937), 103 Ind. App. 257, 7 N.E.2d 54; Elkhart Sawmill Co. v. Skinner (1942), 111 Ind. App. 695, 42 N.E.2d 412. In Johns-Manville, Inc. v. Thrane, supra, it is stated, "And a contract of employment made in Illinois to be performed in Indiana, is in effect an Indiana contract and subject to the laws of Indiana including the Workmen's Compensation Law."

A well-considered comment upon this subject appears in 24 Indiana Law Journal, p. 232.

The board's order dismissing the action is reversed and proceedings remanded to the Industrial Board with instructions to make a further finding of facts and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

NOTE. — Reported in 101 N.E.2d 719.


Summaries of

Finkel v. Onli-Wa Fixture Co.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Nov 19, 1951
121 Ind. App. 622 (Ind. Ct. App. 1951)
Case details for

Finkel v. Onli-Wa Fixture Co.

Case Details

Full title:FINKEL v. ONLI-WA FIXTURE COMPANY ET AL

Court:Court of Appeals of Indiana

Date published: Nov 19, 1951

Citations

121 Ind. App. 622 (Ind. Ct. App. 1951)
101 N.E.2d 719

Citing Cases

Finkel v. General Acc. Fire Life Assu. Corp.

The order of the Industrial Board dismissing plaintiff's claim was then appealed to the Appellate Court of…

Janet's Cleaning Service v. Roynon

Second, the employer must be "localized" in Indiana. See Finkel v. Onli-Wa Fixture Co., 121 Ind. App. 622,…