O'Brien v. Industrial Insurance Department

Citations

• 100 Wash. 674
• 171 P. 1018
• 1918 Wash. LEXIS 794

Syllabus

<p>Appeal—Review—Findings—Absence of Evidence. Where the evidence is not brought up, the findings are conclusive, and. an appeal presents only the question whether they support the judgment.</p> <p>Master and Servant—Workmen’s Compensation Act—Employment in “Warehouse”—Findings—Construction. From findings that defendant was doing a general public warehouse, dock and wharf business, it will be inferred that the dock, wharf and warehouse was a single plant or structure, within the industrial insurance act relating to extra hazardous employments in docks and wharves, and when coupled with a finding that the work in the warehouse was extra hazardous, it will be assumed that the warehouse was the superstructure of a “dock” or “wharf,” and that the work was not exempted as work in a “private warehouse;” especially since “warehouses” may or may not be within the act, depending on the nature of the work (Fullerton and Main, JJ., dissenting).</p> <p>Same—Fund. In such case, it will be assumed that a fund is or will be collected to pay the claim.</p> <p>S amSe — Compensation — Appeal ■—■ Attorney’s Fees — Statute. Rem. Code, § 6604-20, allowing the recovery .of attorney’s fees on appeal from orders of the industrial insurance commission to the superior court, does not authorize a conditional attorney’s fee on appeal to the supreme court, and none can be allowed, in the absence of statute.</p>