Case Name: Racine Auto Tire Company and another, Appellants, vs. Hansen and another, Respondents
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1920-12-14
Citations: 173 Wis. 118
Docket Number: 
Parties: Racine Auto Tire Company and another, Appellants, vs. Hansen and another, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 173
Pages: 118–119

Head Matter:
Racine Auto Tire Company and another, Appellants, vs. Hansen and another, Respondents.
November 19
December 14, 1920.
Appeal and error: Affirmance by divided court.
Where the justices of the supreme court are equally divided in opinion on the question involved on an appeal, the judgment appealed from will be affirmed.
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Dane county. E. Ray Stevens, Circuit Judge.
Affirmed.
This action was brought by the plaintiffs to set aside an award of the Industrial Commission upon the grounds that the Commission acted without and in excess of its •powers; that the findings of the Commission are not supported by the evidence; and that the Commission specifically acted without and in excess of its authority in awarding the applicant, Hansen, treble the amount otherwise recoverable for the injury he sustained, upon the ground that Hansen, a minor under seventeen years of age, had been employed by the plaintiff Tire Company without a written permit as required by sec. 1728a, Stats. The circuit court affirmed the award and judgment was entered accordingly, from which judgment the plaintiffs appeal.
For the appellants there was a brief by Olin, Butler, Steb-bins'& Stroud of Madison, and oral argument- by Byron H. Stebbins. - •
■ For the respondent Hansen there was a brief by Guy A. Benson of Racine.
For the respondent Railroad Commission there was a brief by the Attorney General and Winfield W. Gilman, assistant attorney general, and oral argument by Mr. Gilman.

Opinion:
Siebecker, C. J.
Mr. Justice Kerwin did not participate in the consideration and decision of this case. The court is equally divided in opinion upon the question in volved on this appeal. Mr. Justice Eschweiler, Mr. Justice Rosenberry, and Mr. Justice Jones are of the opinion that the judgment appealed from should be reversed, and Mr. Justice Vinje, Mr. Justice Owen, and the writer are of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed. Under the established rule it follows that the judgment appealed from is affirmed. Swenson v. Flint, 123 Wis. 613, 101 N. W. 1135; Hagenah v. Milwaukee E. R. & L. Co. 136 Wis. 300, 116 N. W. 843; Estate of Carter, 167 Wis. 89, 166 N. W. 657.
By the Court — The judgment appealed from is affirmed.