Court Opinion

ID: 9868524
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:39:29.109254+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:51.181903
License: Public Domain

ON Petition to- Rehear.
A petition to rehear complains of failure of this Court to sustain assignments challenging liability decreed for medical services, on the ground that the parties were engaged in interstate commerce, in which ease, by Code Section 6856, the Compensation Law does not'apply.
We did not discuss this assignment in our original opinion, this issue not having been raised in the trial court. On the contrary, the petition charged and .the answer admitted that the parties were operating* under the Compensation Act, and the trial judge expressly so found. .The motion for a new trial was not directed to this issue, and did not challenge this finding. The attention of the trial court was not called thereto. Grounds 1, 13 and 15 of the motion for a new trial are too general to be effective for this purpose.
Paragraphs (4) and (5) of Rule 14 of this Court expressly preclude consideration on appeal of alleged errors not specifically and “seasonably called to the attention of the trial judge and ruled on adversely to the plaintiff in error.” This rule applies likewise to “matter in arrest of judgment.” And this Court has re-*230peateclly held to this effect, in harmony with this rule, without particular reference thereto.
What has been said would seem to be conclusive, but petitioner says that, on -the ground now raised, the Court was without jurisdiction, and invokes the rule that this Court will, in such a case, take cognizance of this question of jurisdiction, although raised for the first time in this Court. But the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of this cause. It is not only a' court of general jurisdiction, but it has jurisdiction of suits brought to recover under the Compensation Act by the terms of the Act itself. Code, Section 6885'.
 Jurisdiction is tersely defined-by Bouvier as, “the power to hear and determine a cause.” Or “the right to adjudicate concerning the subject-matter in the given case.” I Bouv. Law Diet., Rawles Third Revision, p. 1760. These three essentials are laid down by high authority:‘First, the Court must have cognizance of the class of cases to which the one to be adjudicated belongs ; the proper parties must be present; and third, the point decided upon must be, in substance and effect, within the issue. 1 Black on Judgments, paragraph 242. All of these essentials appear here.
 Code, Section 6856 excludes from operation of the Compensation law, b3?- subsections (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), common carriers, .while engaged in interstate commerce; persons whose employment is casual at the time of the injury; domestic, farm and agricultural employments; and, subject to prescribed exceptions, cases where less than five are employed, and State, County and municipal employments. When suit is brought for compensation either' of these situations may be relied on in defense, and, if the facts so relied on in *231defense are proved, liability cannot be adjudged. In. any such case the question is one of fact. If such an issue is made by the pleading's, the fact is open to proof. The finding’ of the trial court thereon, if supported by competent material evidence, will be affirmed on appeal. But when, as here, the petition charges that, at the time of the injury, the defendant company “was operating under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, and carried compensation insurance on petitioner and other employees with” a named defendant insurance company, and the defendant employer and the defendant insurer jointly answer and expressly “admit” these • charges, and plead specifically as their defenses want of notice, no injury, and no permanent or other disabling injury, etc., thereby putting in issue these matters, only, the defendants are ordinarily concluded by the pleadings as to defenses under Code Section 6856. And when, furthermore, as hereinabove shown, no steps are taken in the trial court, following the introduction of testimony (which it is now alleged showed that the parties were engaged in interstate commerce at the time of the injury), to raise and present specifically this issue to the trial judge, this Court will not take cognizance thereof.
The petition to rehear is dismissed.