The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1915-07-28

CONTINUED from Page One.l
companies have complained. On the
other hand it fails utterly to approve
of the ''snitch'' insurance methods
used by certain concerns under the
compensation act.
History of the Case.
The case in point involved the pay
ment to Ellen McCracken of Great
Bend, lump sum judgment for
$1,S72 for the death of her son while
an employee of the Missouri Valley
Bridge company. The young man was
the woman's sole support. He earned
$12 week as a laborer and the bridge
company of which he was an en-
plOyee, operated under the cOmpenSa
ton act.
Following McCracken's death, the
bridge company was ready to make
immediate settlement. But the insur-
ance company insisted that the mat
ter be tested in the court. When
judgment for $1,S72 was rendered in
favor of the mother, the insurance
company wanted to make payments in
sums "as her necessities required
The court insisted on lump sum
judgment and an appeal was taken to
the supreme court.
McCracken was killed in December,
1914. The court points out that the
mother has been denied the money
under the compensation act for nearly
a year. The supreme court in a spe-
ciaI opinion dismisses the appeal and
the mother must now be paid in full
at once.
The Courts Opinion.
Justice Burch, who wrote the opin-
ion said in part:
1t does not take a financier to I'M
derstand how little she has nor SEN
timentalist to appreciate her needs.
Every man has or has had a mother
in fortunate or unfortunate pecuniary
circumstances. Now an insurance
company. using the name of the de-
PENDANT as appellant, sees in this sit
uatiOn chance to make some money
Probably the plaintiff cannot attain
her Hfe-eXpectancy and the insur-
ance company wants this judgment
do1ed out to her in insta1lments as
her necessities require'-no comfort,
20 inspire or gladden., but as
her necessities may require-SO that
ment will not have to De paid. More
than this, it is said that the judge of
the district court was so callous of
conscience that he abused his official
power in not Withholding some of the
money from this aged, destitute and
helpless woman.
In order to debate a subject with
profit the minds of the disputants
must be capable of meeting on a com
mon plane in common comprehension.
1t is useless to discuss the dignity of
labor with professional gambler. 1t
is useless to discuss the rewards and
the happiness of virtue with a pro-
curess. In this case the insurance
reveals itself in such a way
that it is not necessary for the court to
do more than to express the opinion
that the district court did not abuse
it's discretion.
The fact is this is not a lawsuit. 1t
IS an abuse of the judicial machinery
OF the state, set up for the purpose of
accomplishing justice, by a contuma-
cious corporation which chooses to
disrespect and to defeat as far as it
can a social welfare statute of this
state. The case was a typical one
for the substantial automatic opera
ton of the workmen's compensation
ious to make compensation at once to
the plaintiff for the loss of her sole
means of support. But the insurance
informed the defendant that |
the liability should be established in
the court of last resort or the in
demnity the defendant had purchased
would not be paid
Hint to Legislature.
The court does not possess adequate |
means of dealing with this kind of
lawleSsness. The attorney for the de- |
PENDANT who signs the papers is not |
amenab1e to discipline because he was |
acting under duress of the peril to his |
client, who he assured the court was |
The real culprit is not in court or sub |
ject to process. Because appeals of |
this kind serving no purpose except |
to Cypress claimants and to Illustrate /
the law, are common in compensation |
cases the court has adopted the prac- /
ice of disposing of them summary !