# Brink v. Industrial Commission

> Illinois Supreme Court · April 15, 1938 · 368 Ill. 607

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3414098

## Case

- **Full name:** Maude Brink, Defendant in Error, vs. the Industrial Commission Et Al.—(The Pullman Railroad Company, Plaintiff in Error.)
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 15, 1938
- **Citations:** 368 Ill. 607; 15 N.E.2d 491
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Earthing
- **Judges:** Jones, Chibe, Earthing, Farthing
- **Cited by:** 20 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3414098

## Opinion text

Mr. Chibe Justice Earthing,
dissenting:
I cannot agree that the commission on review had power to grant the motion to amend the stipulation made by the parties without fraud or any other improper influence. No action was taken on the motion and an entirely new defense of interstate commerce was interposed on the hearing on review. The statute allows the parties to introduce “additional evidence” when proper notice is given, but additional evidence does not mean that the employee can assert an entirely new claim, or that the employer can withhold a defense, until after the arbitrator’s award and present it for the first time before the commission. For these reasons, I regretfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3414098. Public record. Not legal advice.