Mayrath Co. v. Industrial Commission

Mayrath Company, Appellant, vs. Industrial Commission Et Al., — (Robert H. Chitwood, Appellee.)

Mayrath Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 210 N.E.2d 529 (Ill. 1965)

Court: Illinois Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: September 28, 1965
Docket: No. 39142
Judges: Schaefer
Citations: 210 N.E.2d 52933 Ill. 2d 2241965 Ill. LEXIS 228

Opinion — Schaefer

Mr. Justice Schaefer delivered the opinion of the court:

On April 18, 1962, Robert Chitwood filed with the Industrial Commission his application for adjustment of claim, alleging that he had sustained an injury while employed by the respondent, Mayrath Company. The matter was set for hearing before an arbitrator on four separate occasions. Chitwood did not appear at any of the scheduled hearings, and an arbitrator dismissed the claim for want of prosecution on January 22, 1963. After the dismissal, Chitwood retained a new attorney, who wrote to the Commission on April 29, 1963. The Commission treated the letter as a petition for reinstatement. After a hearing it vacated the order of dismissal and ordered the application reinstated and set for hearing before an arbitrator at a time and place to be fixed by the Commission. The respondent then brought the matter before the circuit court of Cook County on certiorari, and that court confirmed the order of the Commission. The respondent has appealed directly to this court.

While the parties have raised no question as to jurisdiction, this court has consistently held that when the circuit court remands a compensation case to the Commission, the action of the court is interlocutory and not appealable. (See, e.g., ACF Industries Inc. v. Industrial Com. 8 Ill.2d 552 ; Thompson v. Industrial Com. 377 Ill. 587 ; Peabody Coal Co. v. Industrial Com. 287 Ill. 407 .) The fact that in this case the order of the circuit court stated that “there is no just cause to delay the enforcement of this order” does not make the order appealable under section 50(2) of the Civil Practice Act. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1963, chap, 110, par. 50; see Davis v. Childers, No. 39164.

The appeal is therefore dismissed for want of a final judgment.

Appeal dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Pace Bus Co. v. Industrial Commission787 N.E.2d 234 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003)
City of Rockford v. Badell337 N.E.2d 200 (Ill. App. Ct. 1975)
Bechtel Group, Inc. v. Industrial Commission713 N.E.2d 220 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999)
In re Marriage of Lentz403 N.E.2d 1036 (Ill. 1980)
South Chicago Community Hospital v. Industrial Commission254 N.E.2d 448 (Ill. 1969)
Stockton v. Industrial Commission370 N.E.2d 548 (Ill. 1977)

Most recent

Pace Bus Co. v. Industrial Commission787 N.E.2d 234 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003)
Bechtel Group, Inc. v. Industrial Commission713 N.E.2d 220 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999)
In re Marriage of Lentz403 N.E.2d 1036 (Ill. 1980)
J. M. Jones Co. v. Industrial Commission375 N.E.2d 1306 (Ill. 1978)
Stockton v. Industrial Commission370 N.E.2d 548 (Ill. 1977)
City of Rockford v. Badell337 N.E.2d 200 (Ill. App. Ct. 1975)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

Depth	Case	Cited by
	ACF Indus. v. Indus. Comm'n, 134 N.E.2d 764 (Ill. 1956)	17
	Peabody Coal Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 122 N.E. 843 (Ill. 1919)	11
	Thompson v. Indus. Comm'n, 37 N.E.2d 350 (Ill. 1941)	8

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list