Emmitsburg Railroad v. Lowe

Bond, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. An appeal from the overruling of an employer’s motion to dismiss a claimant’s appeal from action by the State Industrial Accident Commission brings up questions arising from the passage of an order by the circuit court on a second appeal to it, settling the meaning and effect of the court’s order on the first appeal — of which the commission was uncertain — and remanding the case for action by the commission in conformity with the order on the second appeal. An employee of a railroad company engaged in interstate commerce received fatal injuries while conveying United States mail, as messenger, between the postoffiee and the railroad station at Emmitsburg. On a claim for compensation the employer submitted in three issues the questions whether ⁴⁹ .at the time of injury the employee was engaged in interstate commerce, and so not within the jurisdiction of the state commission, and whether his injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment.

And the commission found, first, that the work was so separated from the employee’s interstate commerce work that the state commission had jurisdiction of the claim for compensation, and then, assuming jurisdiction, found that the injuries did not arise out of and in the course of the employment. On the appeal from that first decision the circuit court reversed it generally, and remanded the case. Upon that, the commission, without hearing the employer, awarded compensation in amounts specified, but upon subsequently hearing the employer it became uncertain of the effect of the general order of reversal by the circuit court, inasmuch as reversal of the commission’s decision that it had jurisdiction would preclude allowance of compensation by this state commission even if, contrary to its decision on the other issues, the injuries had arisen out of and in the course of the employment. And because of this uncertainty, the commission then rescinded its award of compensation until the further order of the circuit court.

The question was taken before the circuit court by another appeal by the claimant, and the employer moved that this second appeal be dismissed. In this situation, the circuit court, to settle the effect of its previous order, on which the commission was in doubt, recited that the reversal of the commission’s first order disallowing compensation had been in consequence of a conclusion by the court that the claimant was entitled to compensation, and that conclusion necessarily involved a ruling in favor of the