Court Opinion

ID: 9656549
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:50:52.506814+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:33.254898
License: Public Domain

Carter, J.,
dissenting.
Appellee filed a claim in the compensation court for benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. After a hearing before one member of the compensation court, appellee’s claim was dismissed. He waived his right to a rehearing before the full court, and appealed to the district court. The defendant in that proceeding then served notice to have the matter reheard before the compensation court sitting en banc. This action was brought to determine whether the district court or the compensation court had jurisdiction of the proceeding.
I submit that the defendant in the original proceeding had no right to have the decision reviewed because he was not aggrieved by the judgment entered. If appellee had not appealed to the district court and had elected to abide the decision of the single judge of the compensation court, can it be said that the de*546fendant had a right of review? The majority by its decision says that defendant has such right. In my opinion he does not.
It is the general rule that the right of review is restricted not only to those interested in the subject matter of the suit, but to those injuriously affected or aggrieved by the judgment or order complained of. See 4 C. J. S., Appeal & Error, § 183a, p. 554, and the cases therein collected. In Cowherd v. Kitchen, 57 Neb. 426, 77 N. W. 1107, we said: “But these appellants were not prejudiced by the order of discharge, and it is elementary that one cannot appeal from a decision, however erroneous, which does not affect his substantial rights.” In Sturtevant Co. v. Bohn Sash & Door Co., 59 Neb. 82, 80 N. W. 273, we said: “One not prejudiced by a judgment can not obtain a review thereof.” In Bragonier v. Stevenson, 104 Neb. 578, 178 N. W. 186, we said: “Ordinarily a party cannot appeal from a judgment granting him the relief demanded by his pleadings. A wrong reason for a correct conclusion of the trial court is generally immaterial on appeal.” In the case of In re Estate of Bolton, 121 Neb. 737, 238 N. W. 358, this court said: “Appellees contend that a party who cannot possibly under the law receive more relief than he secured in the lower court has no right of appeal, and a pertinent inquiry would be: Could the district court make any order more favorable to the appellants than the county court has made? We think not. * * * The district court could have made no more favorable order and did right in dismissing their attempted appeal.” I submit that the defendant in the original proceeding received the benefit of a judgment or order granting him all the relief demanded by his pleadings, no part of such judgment or order was adverse to his interests, and he was in no manner prejudiced by the final order made. It was a final order disposing of the litigation unless a proceeding to have it reviewed was properly initiated. I have found no case which *547permits a review by a defendant under such circumstances.
The majority rely primarily on City of Lincoln v. Nebraska Workmen’s Compensation Court, 133 Neb. 225, 274 N. W. 576, and Mook v. City of Lincoln, 143 Neb. 254, 9 N. W. 2d 184. In these cases the parties appealing to the full compensation court were denied a part of the relief sought before the one-member court. Such was not the case here. The distinction is a controlling one, and brings to this court a case of first impression.
There are provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act which create a procedural monstrosity. No reason exists for abandoning established legal principles solely because of this fact. The majority completely overlooks the language of the statute requiring “an application for a rehearing before the court sitting en banc, plainly stating the errors on which such party relies for reversal or modification.” § 48-179, R. R. S. 1943. The defendant did not seek .a reversal or modification of the order of dismissal, which is the relief he sought in the first action. The purported appeal to the full compensation court is a spurious one that has the effect only of toying with the processes of the courts.
Under the holding of the majority, a party who has obtained all he demanded by his pleadings may take an appeal which the full compensation court must hear, even though the party against whom such final order was entered may elect to abide the result. It permits the anomalous situation of an appeal being properly vested in the district court and then being divested by the subsequent action of an adverse party who had obtained all that he sought by his pleadings. It has been a rule of statutory construction by this court, frequently announced, that when a statute is subject to two constructions, one of which results in absurdity and the other avoids such result, the latter construe*548tion should be adopted. Safeway Cabs, Inc. v. Honer, 155 Neb. 418, 52 N. W. 2d 266; Maska v. Stoll, 163 Neb. 857, 81 N. W. 2d 571. This rule has particular application to the case at bar.
It is my opinion that the defendant in the former action had no right of review. He could not therefore lodge jurisdiction of the case with the full compensation court by any proceeding to secure a review. The appeal of the appellee to the district court was authorized and invested that court with jurisdiction to hear the case on appeal. The defendant, having no legal right to a review, could not subsequently divest the jurisdiction of the district court by a specious proceeding for such a review. Since the trial court arrived at this conclusion, I would affirm the judgment.