U S SHIPPING BOARD EMERGENCY FLEET CORPORATION v. SULLIVAN(1923)
Mr. Solicitor General Beck, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner and plaintiff in error.
Mr. Samuel Scoville, Jr., of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant in error and respondent.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Claiming to have been injured (October, 1918) while employed by the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation as a motor truck driver, defendant in error Sullivan presented a claim for compensation to the Workmen's Compensation Bureau, Pennsylvania [261 U.S. 146, 147] Department of Labor and Industry. The corporation answered; denied that the injury was of a permanent nature, and asserted that it was not liable for the further reason 'that claimant was a direct employee of the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, and accordingly is a civil employee of the United States of America, and will be compensated for injury under the federal Workmen's Compensation Act, subject to sustaining proof of disability.'
The referee found that, while employed by the Fleet Corporation as a chauffeur, Sullivan suffered injuries from a collision in Philadelphia; that neither party had served notice rejecting article 3 of the Compensation Act (Pa. St. 1920, 21924-21927); and awarded compensation.
The Bureau heard the matter de novo, and affirmed the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and dismissed the appeal. It said:
Successive appeals, limited by statute to matters of law, were dismissed by the court of common pleas and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Sullivan v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, 76 Pa. Super. Ct. 30. The latter court-the highest where decision in the proceeding could be had-said--
The writ of error (No. 124) must be dismissed. The record fails affirmatively to disclose that there was drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States, or the validity of a statute of or an authority exercised under any state, on the ground of their being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States within the requirements of section 237 of the Judicial Code, as amended [261 U.S. 146, 149] by the Act of September 6, 1916 (Comp. St. 1214).1 Considering the whole record, it is clear that there was no controversy over the validity of any treaty, statute, or authority, federal or state. Plaintiff in error by its answer claimed a right or immunity under the Constitution and laws of the United States. The state tribunals held that there was no evidence to establish the facts necessary to show that it was within the class to which exemption might extend. Champion Lumber Co. v. Fisher, 227 U.S. 445, 451 , 452 S., 33 Sup. Ct. 329; St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. McWhirter, 229 U.S. 265, 276 , 33 S. Sup. Ct. 858; Straus v. American Publishers' Association, 231 U.S. 222, 233 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 84, L. R. A. 1915A, 1099, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 36 .
Considering the character of the record, we think it unwise to bring up the cause by certiorari with a view to considering the questions said to be involved. The petition therefor (No. 93) is accordingly denied.
Writ of error dismissed.
Petition for certiorari denied.
[ Footnote 1 ] Section 237: 'A final judgment or decree in any suit in the highest court of a State in which a decision in the suit could be had, where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under the United States, and the decision is against their validity; or where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under any state, on the ground of their being repugnant to the Constitution, theaties, laws of the United States, and the decision is in favor of their validity, may be reexamined and reversed or affirmed in the Supreme Court upon a writ of error. ...'