These doctrines at the outset raised many new problems in connection with the administration of compensation acts, and there has been some conflict of decisions; but there is a clear tendency, we think, for the courts to settle down on the policy of enforcing contracts under them according to the law of the state in which they were made. Connecticut at one time applied its own Compensation Law to a contract of employment entered into in New York to be performed in Connecticut, Banks v. Howlett Co., 92 Conn. 368, 102 A. 822; but it later limited the decision to the facts in that case, Hopkins v. Matchless Metal Polish Co., 99 Conn. 457, 460, 121 A. 828; and finally overruled it in Pettiti v. Pardy Construction Co., 103 Conn. 101, 109, 130 A. 70. New York has in one or more cases held that the recovery of compensation in the state of the injury will not prevent recovery in the state of employment, when both employer and employee have assented to the Compensation Act of each state.
De Moss v. Evens Howard Fire Brick Co., 37 S.W.2d 961. (b) Mere changes or modifications in the work performed by Adams when he came to St. Louis, are not sufficient to establish a "new contract of employment" as that expression is used in the statute. State ex rel. v. Ry. Co., 318 Mo. 290; Hartman v. Union Elec. L. P. Co., 53 S.W.2d 241; Selser v. Bragmans Bluff Lbr. Co., 142 So. 690; Pettiti v. Pardy Const. Co., 130 A. 70; Tripp v. Ind. Acc. Comm., 4 P.2d 917.
The basis of these decisions is that the original contract is still in force and effect in spite of the changes agreed upon in the state where the injury occurred. ( Selser v. Bragmans Bluff Lumber Co., (La. App.) 146 So. 690; Pettiti v. T.J. Pardy Const. Co., 103 Conn. 101 [ 130 A. 70]; see, also, Magnolia Compress Warehouse Co. v. Davidson, (Tex. Civ. App.) 38 S.W.2d 634; Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Volek, (Tex. Com. App.) 69 S.W.2d 33; Sims v. Truscon Steel Co., 343 Mo. 1216 [ 126 S.W.2d 204].) From these cases it is quite clear that the original contract of two years, extended to three years, was still in effect in spite of the changes in duties and salary agreed upon in the Philippines.
The best reasoned of the decided cases reach results consistent with this approach. Tobin v. Rouse, 118 Vt. 40, 99 A.2d 617 ( Sup. Ct. 1953); Sims v. Truscon Steel Co., 343 Mo. 1216, 126 S.W.2d 204 ( Sup. Ct. 1939); Pettiti v. T.J. Pardy Construction Co., 103 Conn. 101, 130 A. 70 ( Sup. Ct. Er. 1925). In the Pettiti case, supra, where it was contended that a hiring as a foreman of laborers was superseded by an out-of-state arrangement that the employee's duties should include tending a boiler for increased compensation, the court said (130 A., at page 71):
In the Wilson Case the Supreme Court expressly approved the holding of the Court of Civil Appeals. In the Volek Case not only was the opinion approved, but citing with approval Pettiti v. Pardy Construction Co., 103 Conn. 101, 130 A. 70, and declaring "Our Compensation Laws should be liberally construed in favor of the employee" the court held "the purpose of the extraterritorial provision is to protect, under our law, employees who are such in this state under some contract of hiring, and who are incidentally or temporarily sent out of this state to perform labor or services". 69 S.W.2d 35. And again "When the entire record of Frank Volek's employment is examined in the light of the above rule, we think it is fair to conclude therefrom that, while he occupied the status of an employee of Abercrombie Company in Texas, he was sent or induced by such company, through its duly authorized agent, to go temporarily to Louisiana to perform services for it." In the Brown Case it was said:
See, also, Johns-Manville, Inc., v. Thrane, 80 Ind. App. 432, 141 N.E. 229. Many courts, however, disregarding the place where the services are to be rendered, have considered that an elective compensation act of the place of contract follows the employee wherever he renders service under the contract, and is to be enforced in suits for injuries in other states unless that compensation act itself provides against its applying beyond its own state or unless the public policy of the forum or a lack of necessary machinery prevents its enforcement. Pettiti v. Pardy Construction Co., 103 Conn. 101, 130 A. 70; Zurich Co. v. Industrial Commission, 193 Wis. 32, 213 N.W. 630; Smith v. Van Noy Co., 150 Tenn. 25, 262 S.W. 1048, 35 A.L.R. 1409; Altman v. Compensation Bureau, 50 N.D. 215, 195 N.W. 287, 28 A.L.R. 1337; Crane v. Leonard, Crossette Riley, 214 Mich. 218, 183 N.W. 204, 18 A.L.R. 285. The sanction of the due faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution (art. 4, § 1) was applied to compel recognition as a defense of the elective law of the place of the contract where that contract contemplated service also in the place of injury, in Bradford Electric Light Co. v. Clapper, 286 U.S. 145, 52 S. Ct. 571, 76 L. Ed. 1026. The Louisiana act was applied in a Louisiana court to an injury in Florida in Hargis v. McWilliams Co., 9 La. App. 108, 119 So. 88. It was applied in this court to an injury in Texas. United Dredging Co. v. Lindberg (C.C.A.) 18 F.2d 453.
Historically, the employment contract determined whether a claimant might receive workers' compensation benefits under our Workers' Compensation Act. Morin v. Lemieux, 179 Conn. 501, 503, 427 A.2d 397 (1980); Pettiti v. Pardy Construction Co., 103 Conn. 101, 106-107, 130 A. 70 (1925); Hopkins v. Matchless Metal Polish Co., 99 Conn. 457, 460, 121 A. 828 (1923); Banks v. Howlett Co., 92 Conn. 368, 371, 102 A. 822 (1918); Douthwright v. Champlin, 91 Conn. 524, 526, 100 A. 97 (1917); Kennerson v. Thames Towboat Co., 89 Conn. 367, 371, 94 A. 372 (1915). An employee injured in the course of his employment was entitled to receive workers' compensation benefits under our act as long as the employment contract pursuant to which he was employed was executed in Connecticut, regardless of where performance was rendered.
It was not a new hiring. This is illustrated in the following cases from other jurisdictions: In Pettiti v. Pardy Const. Co., 103 Conn 101, 130 A 70, the defendant in Connecticut hired the plaintiff as a foreman on the erection of a buildings in Massachusetts. Because of a difference with the superintendent he was suspended. Within a few days he was taken back, and later the superintendent made an arrangement with him to do extra work for extra pay. It was claimed that the plaintiff's reemployment and the arrangement for extra work at extra pay were new contracts made in Massachusetts.
The trips and the trip leases were merely incidents of a larger continuing relationship already existing. Secs. 3694, 3695, R.S. 1939; Pruitt v. Harker, 328 Mo. 1200, 43 S.W.2d 769; Adams v. Continental Life Ins. Co., 340 Mo. 417, 101 S.W.2d 75; Simms v. Truscon Steel Co., 343 Mo. 1216, 126 S.W.2d 204; Hartman v. Union E.L. P. Co., 53 S.W.2d 241; Selser v. Bragman's Bluff Lumber Co., 146 So. 690; Pettiti v. Pardy Const. Co., 130 A. 70; Tripp v. Ind. Acc. Comm., 4 P.2d 917; Texas Employer's Assn. v. Volek, 69 S.W.2d 33. (10) The Commission was under a duty first to determine whether it had jurisdiction over the claim. Having determined that the employment contract (regardless of whether Pichen or respondent was the employer) was not made in Missouri, and that the Commission, consequently lacked jurisdiction, it properly refrained from expressing an opinion or finding on any other issue. 21 C.J.S., p. 179, sec. 118.
The Commission so found, and the finding is amply supported by the evidence and the authorities. Benguet Consol. Min. Co. v. Industrial Comm., 36 Cal.App.2d 158, 97 P.2d 267; Selser v. Bragmans Bluff Lumber Co., La. App., 146 So. 690; Pettiti v. T.J. Pardy Const. Co., 103 Conn. 101, 130 A. 70; Magnolia Compress Warehouse Co. v. Davidson, Tex. Civ. App., 38 S.W.2d 634; Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Volek, Tex. Com. App., 69 S.W.2d 33; Sims v. Truscon Steel Co., 343 Mo. 1216, 126 S.W.2d 204; Adams v. Continental Life Ins. Co., 340 Mo. 417, 101 S.W.2d 75. Since Fay was injured and killed outside this state, and his contract of employment was entered into outside this state, the Commission found he was not hired in this state and denied compensation.