Case ID: ohio-law-abs_6/html/0271-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "JONES, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE, etc. ex Bredwell et v. Hershner et.
    Ohio Supreme Court.
    No. 20665.
    Decided April 18, 1928.
    *291. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
    Sect. 1465-74 GC. (103 OL. 82) imposing penalty upon non complying employer is uncon :t:tutional and void. 'Third proposition of syllabus of DeW'ft v. State, 108 OS. 513 disapproved.
    158. EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY — 1002. Receivers.
    Irrespective of 1465-74 GC., dependants have right to present award to receiver and, if refused allowance, can, 'by leave of court, procure adjudication on validity. \fu*rwards, on question of priority, may be heard upon distribution of assets.
    Error to Butler Appeals.
    Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
   JONES, J.

1. The clause contained in Section 1465-74, General Code (103 O. L. 82, Sec. 27), imposing a 50% penalty on an employer in addition to the statutory award, is unconstitutional and void. On that feature the third proposition of the syllabus in DeWitt v. State, ex rel, 108 Ohio St., 513, is disapproved.

2. An award was made against a non-complying employer by the Industrial Commission in favor of dependents. This was presented to the receiver in custody of the employer’s assets and payment from the assets in his possession refused. Thereafter, intervening in the same court appointing the receiver, the dependents brought suit against both employer and receiver, basing their claim on said award and its disallowance by the receiver. No service was. made upon the employer nor did he enter an appearance therein.

HELD: That, irrespective of Section 1465-74, General Code, the dependents had a right to present their award to the receiver; and if refused allowance they-could, by leave of the court appointing him, procure an adjudication on its validity. Afterwards, on questions of priority, they could be heard upon the distribution of the assets of the employer among the various. Claimants thereto.

(Marshall, CJ., Day, Kinkade, Robinson and Matthias, JJ., concur. Allen, J., concurs in proposition 2 of the syllabus and in the judgment.)