Case Name: ENNEBERG v. STATE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1917-09-11
Citations: 88 Or. 436
Docket Number: 
Parties: ENNEBERG v. STATE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION.
Judges: McBride, C. J., Benson and Burnett, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 88
Pages: 436–442

Head Matter:
Motion to dismiss appeal denied September 11, 1917.
Argued on the merits March. 1, reversed with directions March 26, rehearing denied April 23, 1918.
ENNEBERG v. STATE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION.
(167 Pac. 310; 171 Pac. 765.)
Master and Servant — Workmen’s Compensation — Appeal—Motion to Dismiss — Finality of Judgment.
1. Notice of appeal reading, “Please take notice that the defendant above named hereby appeals from the whole of the certain judgment made and rendered in this action by said court on” a date named, “a copy of which judgment is hereto annexed,” shows an appealable judgment, and claimant’s motion to dismiss because the appeal is from an order of the Circuit Court dismissing an appeal is not sustained by the record.
Master and Servant — Workmen’s Compensation — Appeal—Transcript of Testimony.
2. An appeal can be prosecuted by the State Industrial Accident Commission from judgment on appeal in the Circuit Court without filing in the Supreme Court a complete transcript of the evidence taken in the trial court.
Appeal and Error — Bond—Necessity—Appeal by Industrial Accident Commission.
3. , Where the State Industrial Accident Commission appeals, it is not required to file an undertaking.
ON THE MERITS.
Master and Servant — Workmen’s Compensation — Notice of Appeal— Time.
4. An applicant for compensation for personal injuries under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Laws 1913, c. 112) was awarded a monthly sum for temporary total disabilities each month for a period of seven months. When the last installment was due, a blank form labeled “Final Settlement Voucher” was sent plaintiff, but was returned by him unsigned, and was again sent to him with a request for his signature on the 16th of November, 1915. The voucher, which was signed and subsequently filed with the commission, recited that it was in final settlement that the sum of $300 had theretofore been paid, and acknowledged the receipt of the further sum of $50 in full discharge of the obligations of' the state. On November 13, 1916, plaintiff’s attorney filed a notice of appeal from the decision of the industrial board. The statute provides that no appeal shall be entertained unless notice of appeal shall have been served by mail or personally upon some member of the commission within 30 days follow ing the rendition of the decision appealed from, and actual communication thereof to the person affected thereby. Held, that the final voucher sent to plaintiff constituted notice to him of the decision of the commission to suspend payment, and the notice of appeal being filed more than 30 days thereafter was too late.
[As to review of facts on appeal under Workmen’s Compensation Act, see note in Ann. Cas. 1916B, 475.]
Denied September 11, 1917.'
On Motion to Dismiss.
(167 Pac. 310.)
From Columbia: James A. Eakin, Judge.
Mr. Milo G. King, for tbe motion.
Mr. George M. Brown, Attorney General, and Mr. Joseph A. Benjamin> Assistant Attorney General, contra.
In Banc.
On the construction and effeet of Workmen’s Compensation Acts generally, see extensive note in L. R. A. 1916A, 23. Reporter,

Opinion:
BENSON, J.
Plaintiff moves to dismiss tbe appeal upon three grounds:
(a) That an order denying defendant's motion to dismiss an appeal in the Circuit Court is not an appeal-able order.
(b) That an appeal cannot be prosecuted unless appellant files in this court a complete transcript of the evidence taken in the trial court.
(c) That defendant has not filed an undertaking on appeal.
Considering these in their order, we observe that the notice of appeal reads as follows:
"Please take'notice that the defendant above named hereby appeals from the whole of the certain judgment made and rendered in this action by said court on the 24th day of January, 1917, a copy of which judgment is hereto annexed."
The judgment is a final one for the recovery of money, and the point raised by plaintiff is not supported by the record.
As regards the second ground, we are not aware of any statute compelling an appellant to bring up a transcript of the testimony and our attention is not called to any authority justifying such contention.
Finally, it was settled in Miller v. State Industrial Accident Commission, 84 Or. 507 (159 Pac. 1150), that when the commission appeals, it is not required to file an undertaking.
The motion is therefore denied.
Motion to Dismiss Denied.
Reversed and remanded March 26, 1918.