employé, pay $10 a month to the plaintiff's mother 'as and for the support, maintenance, and education' of the plaintiff, is one that charges 'the full support and maintenance' of the plaintiff upon his deceased father, within the meaning of section 2394-10, subd. 3(c), of the Statutes. "The plaintiff's mother testified that the sum of $10 paid by the plaintiff's father monthly was not enough to pay for plaintiff's board and room alone, to say nothing of other expenses incident to his support and maintenance. Under such a state of the record the commission could not have found that the court granting the decree charged the deceased father with the 'full support and maintenance' of the plaintiff. "The court by awarding 'the care, custody, maintenance, and education' of the plaintiff to his mother clearly imposed upon her the duty of supplying all support and maintenance in addition to that supplied by the contribution of $10 monthly by the father." [2] We need only add that in this age of high cost of living we can take judicial notice of the fact that $10 per month will not support and educate a nine year old normal boy. The commission and the trial court correctly found the facts and applied the law. [3] Claim is made that the award is wrong upon the commission's theory of the law. This arises through an attack upon the findings of the commission as to the amount contributed by the father to the son the year preceding his death. The commission's findings are conclusive, unless unsupported by any credible evidence. Section 2394-19. Milwaukee Coke & Gas Co. v. Industrial Commission, 160 Wis. 247, 151 N. W. 245. Here the evidence favors the findings made, and they must stand as verities. [4] There was no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in awarding costs against the plaintiff, and in the absence of an abuse of discretion this court cannot interfere. Section 2394-32, subd. 1. Judgment affirmed, without costs to any of the parties, except that plaintiff will pay the clerk's fees in this court. Winslow, C. J., and Kerwin, J., took no part. YUGHIOGHENY & OHIO COAL CO. et al. v. LASEVICH et al. UNION REFRIGERATOR TRANSIT CO v. KRSIAK et al. APPEALS OF INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN. (Supreme Court of Wisconsin. March 9, 1920.) 176 Northwestern Reporter 855. 1. MASTER AND SERVANT- PARTY GIVEN AWARD UNDER WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT "ADVERSE PARTY" ON REVIEW. The party in whose favor award is made by the Industrial Commission is an "adverse party" within St. 1917, § 2394-19, requiring "adverse party" to be made defendant in action against the Industrial Commission to review the awards and orders of the commission. (For other cases, see Master and Servant, Dec. Dig. § 417 [3%].) (For other definitions, see Words and Phrases. First and Second Series, Adverse Party.) 4. MASTER AND SERVANT-ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN AN "ADVERSE PARTY" ON REVIEW OF AWARD UNDER WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT TO ALIEN ENEMIES. In an employer's action against the Industrial Commission to review awards to beneficiaries who were nonresident alien enemies, the Alien Property Custodian appointed by the President under Trading with the Enemy Act Oct. 6, 1917 (U. S. Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, §§ 31152a-31151⁄2ff, 31152g-31152j), as amended March 28, 1918, and November 4, 1918 was an "adverse party" within St. 1917. § 2394 19, requiring "adverse party" to be made a party in such action. (For other cases, see Master and Servant, Dec. Dig. §417[32]-) Appeal from Circuit Court, Dane County; E. Ray Stevens, Judge. Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Kata Lasevich for compensation for death of her husband, opposed by the Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Company, employer, and by the Antonia Krsiak for compensation for death of husband, opposed by the Union Rerigerator Transit Company, employer. Awards by Industrial Commmission to clai mants, and employers bring action to set aside awards. From orders overruling Industrial Commission's demurrer to the complaints, the Industrial Commission appeals. Reserved and remanded, with directions. In both cases the Industrial Commission made awards under the Workmen's Compensation Act (St. 1917, §§ 2394-1 to 2394-95) to widows of men accidentally killed in the course of their employments, and that such awards be paid to the Alien Property Custodina. In each case the employing companies brought action to set aside the awards of the Commission on the grounds that it had acted in excess of its powers in entering awards against the plaintiffs for the reason that the widows to whom the awards were made were at all times in question nonresident alien enemies, and therefore unable to institute or maintain the actions. The Industrial Commission demurred to the complaints on the ground that it appears on the face thereof that there is a defective party defendant by and that such awards be paid to the Alien Property Custodian, in each The trial court found that the Alien Property Custodian has no beduty is to serve as a depository for the amounts awarded until such time as they may be paid to the applicants, and that the Alien Property Custodian the adverse party to be made a party defendant in an action to set aside an award of the Industrial Commission. Orders were entered overruling the demurrer in each case. appeal was taken from each of such orders. An for appellant. John J. Blaine, Atty. Gen., and Winfield W. Gilman, Asst. Atty Gen., Lines, Spooner & Quarles, of Milwaukee, for respondent. SIEBECKER, J. (after stating the facts as above. [1] It is provided are re by statute that orders and awards of the Industrial Commission viewable only by action against the commission if commenced within 20 days, "in which action the adverse party shall also be made defendant." Section 2394-19, Stats. The party in whose favor the award is made is an adverse party in such an action. Gough v. Industrial Commission, 165 Wis. 632, 162 N. W. 434. The question arises: Is the Alien Property Custodian, appointed by the President of the United States under Trading with the Enemy Act, Oct. 6, 1917 (U. S. Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, §§ 31152a31152ff, 31152g-13151⁄2j), amended March 28, 1918, and November 4, 1918, a necessary party within the contemplation of the Wisconsin statute above referred to? The demurrer was overruled on the ground that the Alien Property Custodian has no beneficial interest in the award. As indicated in foregoing statement, the Industrial Commission made the awards in these cases payable to such Custodian to be held by him and to be administered and accounted for as provided by law. It is unquestioned that this act of Congress was a proper exercise of its powers in time of war. Fischer v. Palmer (D. C.) 259 Fed. 355, and cases cited. The act provides for the appointment of the Property Custodian by the President. The various provisions of the act prescribe for the care, custody, and administration of the property and regulate property rights of enemies and their allies in the United States pending the war, and declares, among other things, that— * * * "All moneys paid to or received by the Alien Property Custodian pursuant to this act shall be deposited forthwith in the treasury of the United States. * * * After the end of the war any claim of any to any money or other property received and held by the Alien Property Custodian or deposited in the United States Treasury, shall be settled as Congress shall direct." Barnes' Fed. Code 1919, §10212 (U. S. Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 31151⁄2ff). enemy It is declared in the Senate Report No. 113 concerning this act: "The most novel and important feature of the bill (the conservation and utilization of enemy property during the war) is the requirement that all money and quick assets paid over to the government shall be invested in United States bonds. * * * By this means every property is temporarily conscripted by the government to finance the government through investment in these bond and to be paid back to the enemy or otherwise disposed of at the end of the war as Congress shall direct." [2-4] We cannot doubt that these purposes of the act are fully accomplished by its provisions, and that the Alien Property Custodian, under his appointment by the President, became vested with an interest and qualified title to the moneys and property so acquired and invested him with substantial rights and interest to the exclusion of the enemy. This conclusion is also sustained by the fact that the alien enemy cannot sue in the courts of this country to enforce his rights to such property unless Congress shall confer on him this privilege in the final disposition of such property. The various provisions of the act, in connection with the powers conferred by the President on the Alien Property Custodian, clearly vest in this official such right and interest in alien enemy property, which make him the representative of the government to protect its rights and those of the alien enemy in litigation where such property is involved. This makes him a necessary party to these actions and an adverse party within the contemplation of the provisions of section 2394-19, Stats. The demurrers were improperly overruled. The orders appealed from overruling the demurrers for defect of parties are reversed, and the causes remanded, with direction that orders be entered sustaining the demurrers. Winslow, C. J., and Kerwin, J., took no part. CONTENTS From January to June, 1920, inclusive. Adel v. Casualty Co. of America (Iowa S. C.). 521 Alabach v. Industrial Commission et al. (Ill. S. C.). 667 Albuquerque & Cerrillos Coal Co. et al. v. Lermuseaux et al. (N. M. 563 Alterman v. A. I. Namm & Son et al. (N. Y. S. C.)........... 426 Ambrose v. Coxe Bros. & Co., Inc. (Pa. S. C.)... 894 American Fuel Co. of Utah v. Industrial Commission of Utah et al. 616 American Mut. Liability Ins. Co. [Appeal of] (Mass. S. J. C.) American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Cassil (Neb. S. C.).......... Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, Limited v. Industrial Accident 128 .... Black v. Chicago Great Western R. Co. (Iowa S. C.) Bolden's Case (Mass. S. J. C.). 861 Bollman, In re (Ind. A. C.)... 831 Bowman Dairy Co. v. Industrial Commission et al. (Ill. S. C.). 786 236 Brady v. Holbrook, Cabot & Rollins Corporation (N. Y. S. C.) 91 865 Brenner v. Heruben et al. (Wis. S. C.).. 639 Bristol & Gale Co.. v. Industrial Commission et al. (Ill. S. C.). 790 Bristow Cotton Oil Co. et al. v. State Industrial Commission et al. (Okla. S. C.) 884 Broderick Co. [State ex rel.] v. District Court of Ramsey County 286 |