MULLEN v. MITCHELL

MULLEN v. MITCHELL
1921 OK 129
197 P. 171
81 Okla. 201
Case Number: 11627
Decided: 04/12/1921
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

MULLEN
v.
MITCHELL et al.

Syllabus

¶0 1. Appeal and Error--Failure to File Briefs--Dismissal. Where no briefs are filed, as required by rule 7 of this court (47 Okla. vi), the appeal will be dismissed for want or prosecution.
2. Master and Servant--Workmen''s Compensation Law--Review of Questions of Fact. Under the provisions of section 10, ch. 14, Workmen''s Compensation Act (Laws 1919), the decision of the State Industrial Commission is final as to all questions of fact, and this court is not authorized to weigh the evidence upon which any finding of fact is based.

A. W. Harries, for petitioner.
R. E. Wood, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Wyatt & Waldrep, for respondents.

NICHOLSON, J.

¶1 This suit was instituted in this court by the petitioner, seeking a reversal of an order of the State Industrial Commission, awarding to the respondent James L. Mitchell compensation computed from April 11, 1920, at the rate of $ 18 per week for a period of 100 weeks, or until the total of $ 1,800 had been paid, for the loss of one eye while in the employ of the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to file brief as required by rule 7 of this court (47 Okla. VI), and no reason is given for his failure to file the same, and for this reason the appeal should be dismissed under the authority of Blanlot v. Carbon Coal Co., 76 Okla. 16, 183 P. 880. Furthermore, the petitioner contends that the evidence is insufficient to show that the respondent Mitchell suffered the loss of an eye. The commission found as a fact that he did suffer such loss, and its decision on all questions of fact is final Section 10, ch. 14, Sess. Laws 1919; Board of Comm''rs of Cleveland Co. v. Barr et al., 68 Okla. 193, 173 P. 206; Choctaw Portland Cement Co. v. Lamb et al., 79 Okla. 109, 189 P. 750; Stephenson v. State Industrial Commission et al., 79 Okla. 228, 192 P. 580; Raulerson v. State Industrial Commission, 76 Okla. 8, 183 P. 880. Therefore, this suit is hereby dismissed.