BROOKE, STONE, OSTRANDER, BIRD, MOORE, and STEERE, JJ., concurred with KUHN, J.

MCALVAY, C. J. I do not think that this was an industrial accident within the statute.

SUPREME COURT.

ESTATE OF P. D. BECKWITH

and

FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY,

Applicants and Appellants,

VS.

ALDEN SPOONER,

Respondent and Appellee.

1. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION-PETITION TO TERMINATE PAYMENTS-RES JUDICATA.

On the hearing of an employer's petition to the Industrial Accident Board to terminate compensation awarded to an injured servant by the contract of employer approved by the accident board, the essential elements leading up to the award are to be taken as concluded and are not open to review. The physical condition of the injured employee is the subject of inquiry and is legally open to adjudication. Act No. 10, Extra Session 1912 (2 How. Stat. [2d Ed.] § 3939 et seq.).

2. SAME CONTRACTS-RES JUDICATA.

An employer's agreement filed with and approved by the accident board, granting compensation to a servant for injuries sustained in the course of his employment, is a substitute for, and under the statute is the legal equivalent of, a final award of the Board, and has equal force and standing, when, to enforce recovery, it becomes necessary to put them in judgment in the circuit court.

3

4.

APPEAL AND ERROR-CERTIORARI-WORK MENS COMPENSATION. Upon review of the findings and determination of the Industrial Accident Board by writ of certiorari, the findings of fact are to be taken as final and conclusive if there is evidence to support them, in the absence of fraud.

SAME INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD-REVIEW.

Where an employee received compensation from his employer by a written agreement approved by the accident board, after a full opportunity to investigate the facts, and no fraud was alleged, the agreement was conclusive as to a subsequent claim of the employer that the loss of the eye, afterward, by a cataract, was not produced by the injury, which the medical testimony tended to show might have resulted from the injury, the employer claiming that the cataract resulted from a cataract on the cther eye that had been removed by an operation, or was caused by senility, and that the injury did not cause the loss of sight.

5. SAME.

Where different inferences may be drawn from the testimony before the Industrial Accident Board, and inferences which are favorable to their finding that a petition to terminate compensation should not be granted are deducible from the record, the court on certiorari will not disturb the result.

Certiorari to the Industrial Accident Board; submitted November 13, 1913. Decided December 18, 1914.

The estate of P. D. Beckwith, a corporation, and Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York petitioned the Industrial Accident Board for an order terminating the right to compensation of Alden Spooner, under an agreement with the petitioner, and from an order denying the petition they appeal. Affirmed.

Charles H. Ruttle, for appellants.

Persons, Shields & Silsbee, for appellee.

STEERE, J. Plaintiff, and appellants herein seek, by certiorari review and reversal of certain "Proceedings and Decisions and Awards," had and made before and by the Industrial Accident Board of this state, which culminated in the following final order:

"This matter having come on to be heard upon the petition of the respondent filed herein, praying for relief and to stop compensation for reasons set forth in said petition, and, after full examination of the proofs, upon said petition, and hearing argument thereon, and due consideration thereon having been had, and it appearing to the Board that the facts alleged in said petition as reason for stopping compensation are not sustained by the proofs, it is ordered and adjudged that the said petition be, and the same is hereby dismissed.”

It appears, undisputed, that said Alden Spooner was reg ularly employed as a molder by the above corporation, known as the "Estate of P. D. Beckwith," of Dowagiac, Mich., which, as an employer of labor, had, with approval of the Industrial Accident Board, elected to come under the provisions of Act No. 10, Public Acts of 1912, extra sesion, (2 How. Stat. [2d Ed.] § 3939, et seq.) While regularly engaged in its employment as a molder Spooner suffered an accident resulting in an injury to his right eye, described by his employer, in its report made under the requirements of section 16, part 3, of said act, as follows:

"Molten iron splashed into right eye, right eye burned."

Section 5 of part 3 of said act provides:

"If the employer, or the insurance company carrying such risk, or Commissioner of Insurance, as the case may be, and the injured employe reach an agreement in regard to compensation under this act, a memorandum of such agreement shall be filed with the Industrial Accident Board, and, if approved by it, shall be deemed final and binding upon the parties thereto. Such agreement shall be approved by said Board only when the terms conform to the provisions of this act."

Pursuant to the provisions of this section the following was filed with the Industrial Accident Board, on November 14, 1913:

"AGREEMENT IN REGARD TO COMPENSATION.

"We, Al Spooner, residing at city or town of Dowagiac, Mich., and Fidelity & Casualty Co., of N. Y., have reached an agreeement in regard to compensation for the injury sustained by said employe while in the employ of Estate of P. D. Beckwith, Inc., Dowagiac.

"The time, including hour and date of accident, the place where it occurred, the nature and cause of injury and other cause or ground of claim, are as follows:

"Mr. Spooner was injured Oct. 22, 1913, about 4:30 p. m. Molten iron splashed into right eye, causing bad burn in corner of eye. "The terms of the agreement follow: $17.60 wages earned; $8.80 compensation agreed upon.

"Al Spooner,

"Fidelity & Casualty Co., of N. Y., "By Leo A. Donahoe.

"Witness: Wm. Hurst.

"E. A. Miecham.

"Dated at Dowagiac, Mich., this 12th day of November, 1913."

This agreement was approved by the Industrial Accident Board on November 14, 1913, and thereafter compensation was paid accordingly from October 22, 1913, to January 14, 1914.

On January 21, 1914, appellants filed with the Industrial Accident Board a petition asking to be relieved from further payments, based upon the following letter or report, addressed to Dr. Jones, the local physician who attended Spooner professionally at the time of his injury, and who had referred him to Dr. Bonine, an eye specialist:

"January 15, 1914.

"Dr. J. H. Jones,

"Dowagiac, Mich.

"Dear Sir: I have had Mr. Spooner under my careful scrutiny and find the following condition: Some years ago I operated for cataract on one eye and obtained good results-above the average. The other eye shows signs of the same trouble at this time. That, however, is not strange as it is the rule with senile cataracts if they come on one eye they are quite certain to grow on the other, as you know.

"Therefore there is nothing unexpected about the remaining lens filling in, so can't see where any one could be held responsible for

present conditions, as no other pathological condition of the orbit is in evidence.

(Signed) F. N. Bonine, M. D."

Upon the hearing of said petition depositions of Drs. Jones and Bonine were introduced in evidence. The board thereafter made the following:

"FINDINGS OF FACT.

"(1.) The respondent, Alden Spooner, was employed in the plant of the Estate of P. D. Beckwith, Inc., as a molder, and had worked there for several years in that capacity. He was 65 years old and at the time of the injury was receiving wages of $17.60 per week.

"(2.) That on October 22, 1913, respondent while attending to his duties as a molder, received an injury to his right eye by having hot sand and other substances splashed into the same, producing an inflammation necessitating immediate medical attention and causing disability to do work.

“(3.) That in 1905 respondent had a cataract removed from his left eye by Dr. F. N. Bonine and that such operation was successful and the result thereof above the average.

“(4.) That respondent's right eye, being the one injured in October, 1913, has now developed a cataract, which is so far advanced that he can discern light but has practically no vision. His left eye, operated on in 1905, is of little use, and he is in a condition of total disability on account of the condition of his said eyes.

"(5) That the claim of petitioners, that the present condition of respondent's right eye is due not to the injury thereof on October 22, 1913, but that such condition is due to senile cataract, is not sustained by the evidence.

"(6.) That the present condition of respondent's right eye and his resulting disability is due to the injury received by him October 22, 1913.

"(7.) That all of the proposed findings of fact of petitioners, not included in these findings are refused."

Against the action of the Industrial Accident Board in this matter, appellants urge two major grounds of reversal: First that the controlling findings of fact are unwarranted and unsupported by evidence; and second, "insufficiency of proceed ings." In explanation of the latter it is stated that not the legality, but the sufficiency, of the proceedings is questioned,